- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER 971 OF 2008 IN L.C.SUIT NO.1628 OF 2008 Shri.Purshottam D. Solanki. ...Appellant. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai. ...Respondent. --- Shri.C.K.Tripathi, for Appellant. Mrs.Geeta Jogalekar, for B.M.C. CORAM: S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM: S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM: S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. DATED: 3rd October,2008. DATED: 3rd October,2008. DATED: 3rd October,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. Admit. Heard finally. 2. The appellant’s apprehension is that the impugned notice issued under section 488 is contrary to the notice issued under Section 351 of the BMC Act which was challenged in suit no.3147 of 1999 unsuccessfully. - 2 - 3. Even assuming that there is any incorrect description in the notice under section 488 of the Act, it is clarified that any proposed action shall be limited to and only in accordance with the notice dated 8.12.1998 issued under Section 351 of the Act. This is for this reason the notice under section 488 of the Act is only pursuant to the notice under section 351 of the Act. 4. With the above clarification, appeal from order is disposed of. Suit also is accordingly disposed of. --- - 3 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1177 OF 2008 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER 971 OF 2008 IN L.C.SUIT NO.1628 OF 2008 Shri.Purshottam D. Solanki. ...Appellant. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai. ...Respondent. --- Shri.C.K.Tripathi, for Appellant. Mrs.Geeta Jogalekar, for B.M.C. CORAM: S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM: S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM: S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. DATED: 3rd October,2008. DATED: 3rd October,2008. DATED: 3rd October,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C.: . In view of the order passed today i.e. 3.10.2008 in Appeal from order no.971 of 2008, the present civil application does not survive for consideration, hence, disposed of. ---