* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 697 OF 2006 1. Shri.Ramesh Vishnu Date & anr. ........Appellants V/S. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation .......Respondent ­­­­­­­­­ Ms.Leena Patil, adv.for appellants. Mr.A.S. Rao, adv.for respondent. CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 8 th OCTOBER, 2009. P.C. : 1. Ms.Patil makes an oral application for restoration of the Appeal which was dismissed for default in the morning Session. The Appeal is restored to file and immediately taken up for hearing. 2. Heard Ms.Patil for the appellants and Mr.Rao for the respondent. 3. The appellants feel aggrieved by the order dated 26th July 2006 passed by the trial court rejecting the appellants application for interim reliefs. The suit structure is a four storied building known as `Date Bhavan situate at C.S.No. ’ 5593, 5600 to 5604 situated at Gajbandhan, Patharli, Dombivali (E), Tal.Kalyan, District­Thane. 4. By a Deed of Sale dated 29th June, 1982 the appellants purchased the above land together with a building standing thereon by name `Sudha Niwas’ * 2 * from one Nirmala Dongre. After purchase of the property, the appellants demolished the existing building and constructed the present building of `Date Bhavan . Admittedly for carrying out this construction, the appellants had not ’ made any application for permission to municipal authorities. They contend that Nirmala Dongre had submitted an application to the Municipal Corporation and obtained permission on 18th January, 1975 for construction and rely upon that permission. 5. Ms.Patil, submits that, this permission granted to Nirmala Dongre is renewed from time to time till the year 1981. However there is not even an attempt made by the appellants to bring on record to show that the nature of construction sought to be carried out by Nirmala Dongre was same as the construction carried out by the appellants themselves. The trial court on the basis of the record produced by the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation observed that the permission dated 18th January 1975 for construction obtained by Nirmala Dongre was not renewed and she had not carried out any construction pursuant to the permission. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the appellants to apply for fresh permission before commencing construction. In these circumstances, there is no error or illegality in the impugned order. Hence, the Appeal from order is dismissed in limine. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J] * 3 *