1 ao688-10 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 688 OF 2010 Mira Bhayander Municipal .. Appellant Corporation, Bhyander (Org. Defendant) V/s. M/s. Kamakhya Enterprises .. Respondent (Org. Plaintiff) ....... Mr. M. V. Limaye for the Appellant. ....... CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 17, 2010 P.C.: Heard Mr. Limaye, learned counsel for the Appellant. 2. This Appeal challenges the Judgment and order dated 17th April, 2009, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane below Exhibit 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 489 of 2007. By that Judgment, the learned trial Judge allowed the application filed by the Respondent/original Plaintiff and the 2 ao688-10 Defendant Corporation was restrained from acting upon the suit notice dated 29th June, 2007 issued under section 478 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter in short referred to as “the Act”) on suit property and from demolishing the construction on suit land without following due process of law. 3. Mr. Limaye submitted that the Respondent has carried out the construction in the area which is reserved for recreation ground and parking area. He further submitted that the building permission was granted on 24th September, 2004 in favour of the Respondent. However, the Respondent did not complete the construction within one year. He, therefore, submitted that the Appeal requires to be admitted. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Appellant. It is not in dispute that the Respondent has obtained building permission from the Appellant Corporation as is evident from the documents filed alongwith the list Exhibit 36. In order to substantiate the submission that the Respondents has carried out construction 3 ao688-10 in the area reserved for recreation garden and parking area, the Defendant has not brought any material on record. 5. So far as the submission that the Defendant did not carry out any construction, within one year is concerned, there is no material on record to indicate either way as to whether the Respondent applied for renewal of building permission or not. In these circumstances, I do not find that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in allowing the Application. 6. I find no substance in the present Appeal. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. [R. G. KETKAR, J.]