R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

( 2 ) THE appellant challenges the order dated 2nd November, 2001 passed by the learned single Judge in the First Appeal No. 1192 of 2001. By the impugned order, the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 8th June, 2001 passed by the Trial Court on preliminary issue of limitation was dismissed while confirming the order of the Trial Court and holding that the suit filed by the appellant was barred by the law of limitation.

( 3 ) FEW facts relevant for the decision are that the appellant claims to be monthly tenant of a suit shop situated on the ground floor at Gulab Baug, Laxmi Bazar, M. G. Road, santacruz (West), Mumbai. Undisputedly, he is in possession of the said premises. A po- tice under Section 351 of the Bombay municipal Corporation, 1888, which is now called as the Mumbai Municipal Corporation act, 1888, hereinafter called as "the said act", came to be issued to the appellant on 23rd May, 1994 alleging that the appellant had carried out extension of 1. 30 m x 4. 30m. in front of the said shop premises and requiring the appellant to show cause as to why the same should not be removed. The appellant replied the said notice on 31st May, 1994 and requested for hearing in order to enable the appellant to produce necessary documents for inspection by the authorities in respect of his contention to relation to the alleged extension. Tht. espondent by its order dated 2nd September, 1994 informed the appellant that as he had filed to produce documentary evidence to prove authorization of the work described in the said notice issued to him, he was required to remove the said extension forthwith, falling which, the Ward Officer would be deputed to demolish the entire structure.

( 4 ) IT is the case of the appellant that no action in terms of the said decision dated 2nd September, 1994 was even taken by the respondent till March, 1996. However, on 22nd March, 1996, some of the employees of mumbai Municipal Corporation came to the site and threatened the appellant that they would demolish the alleged extension in terms of the said order. The appellant, therefore, filed the L. C. Suit No. 1910 of 1996 for declaration and injunction on 3rd April, 1996. Simultaneously, the appellant had also taken out the notice for interim relief. The same was opposed by the respondent contending that the suit itself was not maintainable in the absence of notice under Section 527 of the said Act. Subsequently, even in the written statement, similar objection was raised by the respondent. "meanwhile, on 3rd August, 1998, the appellant served a notice under Section 527 of the said Act upon the respondent. After filing of the written statement on 30th September, 2000, the appellant sought leave of the Trial Court under an application dated 20lh December, 2000 to withdraw the said suit with liberty to file a fresh suit, as the said suit would have been defeated on technical ground of absence of prior notice to the respondent. The said leave was granted while allowing the appellant to withdraw the suit on 20th december, 2000. The appellant thereafter on 29th January, 2001 filed fresh suit being lc. No. 639 of 2001, He also took out notice of Mption and consequent to the filing of the reply and pleadings, bearing_ in mind the provisions of Section 14 (3) of the Limitation act, a preliminary issue regarding bar of limitation came to be framed on 28 th April, 2001. The parties were allowed to lead evidence. The appellant examined himself for the plaintiff. None was examined on behalf of the Corporation. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties on the said issue, held that the suit was barred by law of limitation, and therefore, dismissed the suit on 8lh June, 2001. The appeal carried against the judgment and order of the Trial Court was dismissed by the learned single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 11th July, 2001.

(