1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.934 OF 2008 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1123 OF 2008 Abdul Bayan Nooruddin Mistry .... Appellant Vs. The Municipal Corporation of .... Respondents Greater Bombay & Ors. Mr. Anil Singh i/by Mr. Dhanesh R. Shah, Advocate for Appellant. Mrs. Geeta Joglekar, Advocate for B.M.C. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J Date : 18th September, 2008 P.C. 1. This Appeal from Order arises out of order dated 5th September, 2008 passed by Bombay City Civil Court, by which the Notice of Motion No.944 of 2008 taken out by the appellant for interim injunction to restrain the respondent- Municipal Corporation from demolishing the suit premises without following due process of law was rejected. The appellant is the owner of two structures situate at city survey No.F/220, admeasuring 273.4 square meters. Structure no.1 is known as Abdulla Burhan building consisting of ground plus two upper floors. At a distance of about 15 feet therefrom is another structure called building no.2 which is a ground floor 2 structure having four shops. According to the appellant, both these structures have been in existence for last more than 50 years and hence are authorised structures. The appellant apprehends that the respondent- Corporation may demolish the structure no. 2 under the guise of implementation of notice dated 25th April, 2000 issued under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. According to the appellant, the structures in respect of which the said notice was issued was a structure consisting of four shops adjoining to building no.1, which four shops came to be demolished by the respondent-Corporation, thereby completing the action under Section 351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Judge has clearly observed therein that the respondent – Corporation at this juncture has nothing to do with the second structure. It admits existence of that building no.2 and that it cannot demolish that old building no.2. Therefore, there cannot be no apprehension that under the guise of completing the action under the earlier notices, the appellant's structure no. 2 would be demolished by the respondent- Corporation. It is to be mentioned here that according to the respondent-Corporation, the action under notices issued in the year 2000 under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act has not been 3 completed by demolition. In any case the order makes it abundantly clear that the respondent- Corporation is not proceeding against structure no.2. In these circumstances, no interference is called for in the impugned order. The Appeal from Order is dismissed in limine. 2. In view of the disposal of the Appeal from Order, the Civil Application does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. (SMT. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA,J)