FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.51 OF 200 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.51 OF 200 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.51 OF 2009 Along with Along with Along with CIVIL APPLICATION A NO.66 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION A NO.66 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION A NO.66 OF 2009 -----------------------------------:------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders. coram, appearances, Court’s orders : or directions and Registrar’s : orders. : -----------------------------------:------------------------------------- Mr.Shivajirao Patil, for the appellants. Mr J.J.Xavier, for the respondent. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED: 21st JANUARY, 2009 DATED: 21st JANUARY, 2009 DATED: 21st JANUARY, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this Appeal from order, the appellants have impugned an order dated 31.12.2008 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court, refusing to grant ad-interim injunction as prayed in the notice of motion. The impugned order reads thus : . Perused the record. There is a long delay in filing the suit. Notice was issued on 28.11.2007. Moreover, even as per the case of plaintiff, some part of the structure has been demolished in the month of March, 2008. The photographs of the suit premises are filed on record which also show that the substantial structure has been demolished. The photographs show the position of the suit premises as on 14.1.2007. Therefore, if injunction is granted, there is possibility that plaintiff may again erect the structure. Moreover, nature of the structure indicates that the structure was a shed and if it is substantially demolished, only part of it should not be protected, as it is of no use and even if it is protected, it is likely to collapse at any time and which may result into any casualty. Therefore, I am of the view that no interim relief should be granted in favour of plaintiff, without opportunity of filing reply is given to the defendant. Thus, following order is passed. Interim relief is refused." 3. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the BMC issued a final order under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act,1888,(for short "the Act") on 17.12.2008, in pursuance of which they now proposed to demolish the entire structures, which, according to Mr Patil shows that the suit structures were not demolished in pursuance of the earlier order dated 16.12.2006 passed after issuance of the notice under section 351 of the Act. He further submits that the structures are on the private land and they exist since last several years and, therefore, deserve to be protected. 4. I perused the notice under section 351 dated 28.11.2006 making reference to eleven structures, the order dated 16.12.2006 and the notice under section 488 dated 5.3.2008. All these documents clearly show that in pursuance of the notice under section 351 dated 28.11.2006, the suit structures were demolished, except the two structures, both admeasuring 225 sq.ft each. Those two structures could not be demolished in view of the fact that the appellant had produced photopasses in respect thereof. However, from the final order dated 17.12.2008, it is clear that the photopasses, which were produced by the appellants, were subsequently cancelled by the Deputy Collector vide order dated 1.9.2008 on the ground that the said structures were not declared as slum. In the circumstances, I find absolutely no merit in this Appeal from order. It is dismissed as such. Consequently, the civil application stands disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)