refers to assessment extracts in respect of C.I.shed. Thereafter, my attention is drawn to the suit notice dated 30.3.2016 issued under section 354-A of the Act pertaining to 2nd floor. On the basis of these documents, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned trial Judge ought to have granted an opportunity to the appellant and at least for the Municipal authorities to consider the material. It is submitted that these documents ought to have been considered by the learned trial Judge before refusing ad-interim relief. He submitted that as a consequence of the refusal of adinterim reliefs, the Corporation intends to undertake complete demolition of the building as specifically urged in para 18 of the plaint. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentMunicipal Corporation has defended the impugned order and justified the order. The Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the documents which are relied upon by the appellant do not pertain to the suit structure. It is stated that assessment extract does not indicate in any manner that it pertains to the suit structure as it refers only to a C.I.shed. However, as regards issuance of any section 351 notice, the Municipal Corporation has neither placed the correct position on record before the learned trial Judge as also in this Appeal and the respondent-Corporation is not in a position to say
