: 1 : ao.712.2010.sxw vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.712 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.903 OF 2010 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.712 OF 2010 Moreshwar Pandurang Keni & Anr. ... Appellants V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & anr. ... Respondents Mr.R.V. Govilkar i/b H.T. Pawar for the Appellants Ms.K.K. Soraan for the Respondent No.1 Mr.Simil Purohit i/b M/s.Shroff & Co. for Resp. No.2 CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE: JULY 13, 2011 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant record. 2. The appeal is preferred by the original plaintiffs against the rejection of the Notice of Motion for injunction restraining the defendant No.2 from carrying out any further construction and development activities on final plot Nos.492 and 493 at Borivali (West). According to the plaintiffs, the said : 2 : ao.712.2010.sxw plots were carved out from City Survey No.375, which was originally Survey No.38 belonging to the plaintiffs. Defendant No.2 has no right, title or interest on the said final plot Nos.492 and 493 but by mistake in the revenue record name of defendant No.2 has been recorded as owner of the same and on that basis he has obtained permission for construction from the Municipal Corporation. Defendant No.2 denied this contention and contended that the said two plots have no concern with the City Survey No.375, which allegedly belong to the plaintiffs. After hearing the parties, the trial Court rejected the notice of motion. 3. The learned Counsel for appellant could not show me any document to support the contention of the plaintiffs that the final plot Nos.492 and 493 were carved out of original Survey No.38 or City Survey No.375. On the other hand, Town Planning Scheme, Borivali No.3 (Final) shows that the final plot Nos.492 and 493 were carved out of Survey Nos.401 and 402. The commencement certificate dated 3.9.2005 issued by the Municipal Corporation in favour of Defendant No.2 also shows that the permission has been granted in respect of amalgamated property consisting of City Survey No.391A and final plot Nos.492 and 493. Thus, there is nothing to show that the said final plots were carved out either from the original Survey No.38 or City Survey No.375. In view of this, I find no fault with the impugned order. : 3 : ao.712.2010.sxw 4. In the result, the appeal and the application stand dismissed. 5. As the trial of the suit is in progress, the trial Court will not be influenced by any observations made in this order. (J.H. BHATIA, J.)