: 1 : SD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.17718 OF 2005 FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.17718 OF 2005 FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.17718 OF 2005 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3534 OF 2005 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3534 OF 2005 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3534 OF 2005 Pramila Kishanlal Gupta ...Appellant V/s. The Bombay Municipal Corporation of . Greater Bombay ...Respondent Mr.K.K. Pandey, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mr.J.J. Xavier, Advocate, for the Respondent. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 7TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 7TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 7TH MARCH, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocate for the appellant and the Advocate for the respondent. 2. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Bombay for challenging a notice issued under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and the order passed thereon. The said suit is dismissed on the ground that the notice has been issued in the name of the father of the appellant and there was no evidence adduced to show that the appellant-daughter has any concern with the suit premises. : 2 : 3. The submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that the ration card and voter’s list does show the name of the appellant and therefore the said documents show that the appellant is very much concerned with the suit premises. He stated that a power of attorney has been executed in favour of the appellant by her father. His submission is that the ration card and voter’s list produced before the Trial Court is not the correct one. He submitted that the correct documents were not produced by the concerned Advocate. 4. I have considered the submissions. Admittedly, the notice under Section 351 of the said Act of 1888 is addressed to the father of the appellant. Ration Card has been produced at Exhibit-4 issued in the name of the father of the appellant at the address of the suit premises. The ration card contains names of about 12 family members in which name of the plaintiff-appellant does not appear. Voter’s list showing the name of the appellant’s father has been produced at Exhibit-6. The said Voter’s list does not contain name of the appellant. The appellant has not produced the alleged power of attorney executed in her favour by her father. : 3 : Averments made in the plaint show that the suit is not filed by the appellant in her capacity as the constituted attorney of her father but the suit has been independently filed by her. 5. In view of aforesaid factual aspects, the Trial Court was right in holding that the appellant has no locus to challenge the impugned notice. 6. There is no merit in the Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. 7. In view of dismissal of the Appeal, Civil Application No.3534 of 2005 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]