Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the original plaintiff challenging the order dated 01.10.2016 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai, thereby rejecting the draft Notice of Motion filed in Suit Stamp No. 9382 of 2016.

2. As per the case of the appellant, he is the owner of the building no. 35/37/39, Nishanpada, X-Lane, Mumbai - 400 099. The said building is occupied by 22 tenants, all are residing along with their family members. As the building was in dilapidated condition, the appellant made various applications before the MHADA for obtaining permission for repair work of the building. In the year 2006, the appellant received such permission. However, the appellant failed to repair the said building due to financial crisis. Hence, the appellant made application on 10.10.2015 for carrying out the repairs and accordingly started the repair work in respect of the said building. However various notices came to be issued to the appellant by the Municipal Corporation calling upon him to show cause as to why the construction carried out by him should not be demolished on the count of it being unauthorized and illegal. The last notice was received by him on 09.04.2016 under Section 354(A) of MMC Act, 1888. The apprehension of the appellant is that the respondent- Municipal Corporation may demolish the said building pursuant to the notice and hence he approached the Trial Court seeking relief of permanent injunction.

3. Along with the suit, the appellant has filed a draft Notice of Motion seeking the relief of interim injunction.

4. This notice of motion came to be resisted by the respondent-Municipal Corporation by filing affidavit-in-reply of its Junior Engineer Mr. Vinod Ghare contending, inter-alia, that the URS 2 of 6 3 AOST 29277-16 @ CAAST 29281-16.doc-918 appellant had carried out totally illegal and unauthorized construction in respect of which the complaints were received and hence the inspection was taken by the staff on 08.04.2016. At that time, it was noticed that the construction was carried out by the appellant without obtaining any permission from the competent authority. Hence the appellant was called upon to show cause within 24 hours. However, the appellant failed to do so. It is submitted by the respondent-Municipal Corporation that prior to filing of the present suit, the appellant has filed another suit bearing no. BCCC Suit No. 783 of 2016 in respect of same suit property for challenging first stop work notice dated 02.04.2016 issued under Section 354(A) of the BMC Act. At the time of arguments on ad-interim relief, the appellant sought time to file reply to the notice and the documents. Accordingly, the Court granted time. However, the appellant failed to submit the documents and reply to notice. Again the appellant approached the Trial Court by filing Suit No. 905 of 2016 for seeking permission and extension to file documents. The Trial Court rejected the said request of the appellant and after hearing learned Counsel for both the sides, rejected the prayer of ad-interim relief vide its order dated 22.04.2016. It is submitted by the respondent-Municipal Corporation that these material facts were suppressed by the appellant that the appellant had earlier challenged the notice dated 02.04.2016 and the order passed thereon by the Designated Officer on 16.04.2016. It is submitted that at that time, the unauthorized reconstruction of the building was of ground + three floors and further vertical extension by RSJ frameworks.

5. It is urged that the respondent had also earlier issued notice dated 30.10.2015 under Section 354 (A) of the BMC Act and second notice dated 30.01.2016. Third stop work notice was issued on 15.03.2016, the 4th stop work notice was issued on 30.03.2016, 5th stop work notice was issued on 20.04.2016 and the 6th stop work notice was issued on 09.04.2016.

6. Pursuant to these stop work notices, the respondent demolished the suit structure four times i.e. first demo