1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 647 OF 2009 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 812 OF 2009 Abdul Qadir Shukri s/o Mohamed Shukri & anr. ... Appellants v/s Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai, & anr. ... Respondent Mrs.Aarti P. Bhide for the appellants. Mrs.K.K.Soraan for the Resp. No.1 Corporation. Mr.N.D.Jaywant for the respondent No.2. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 1ST DECEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. The appellants have approached this Court against the order dated 24.2.2009 by which the Trial Court has refused interim relief to the appellants and has dismissed the notice of motion. 2. The appellants were issued a notice under Section 351 2 of the M.M.C. Act. The unauthorized constructions mentioned in the notice are – (i) fixing of door in the staircase lobby at third floor level; (ii) construction of W.C. and water fountain on the terrace; and (iii) construction of shed with G.I. sheet and M.S. Grills and pipes on the terrace. 3. Admittedly, the sanctioned plan of the building in which the appellants have a residence, does not indicate that any of the aforesaid structures have been permitted by the Corporation. Even after the sanctioned plan was issued, there is nothing on record to indicate that the structures mentioned in the notice issued under Section 351 have been regularized or indeed any permission has been granted to protect these structures. 4. In my opinion, therefore, the Trial Court has committed no error by refusing to grant interim relief. If the plaintiffs have no right at all in law, they cannot be entitled to interim relief merely because the suit that they have filed may become infructuous, if no relief is granted. 5. Appeal from order dismissed along with the civil application. ..... 3 4