Facts: The Original Plaintiff, Abdul Wahid Ismail (now represented by his legal heirs), occupied business premises in Mumbai. In 1995, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) issued a notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act), alleging that the structure was unauthorized. The Deputy Municipal Commissioner passed an order in 1998 directing demolition, asserting that the Plaintiff failed to prove the structure existed prior to the datum line of 1st April 1962. The Plaintiff filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court challenging this notice and order. The Plaintiff claimed to have served a statutory notice under Section 527 of the MMC Act, which the Respondent denied.Procedural Posture: The Bombay City Civil Court dismissed the suit in 2006, holding it non-maintainable for want of Section 527 notice and finding the structure unauthorized on merits. The Appellants (legal heirs) filed this First Appeal before the Bombay High Court challenging that dismissal.Issue: 1. Was the suit maintainable in the absence of proof of service of the statutory notice under Section 527 of the MMC Act? 2. Did the Plaintiff provide sufficient evidence to prove the suit structure was authorized or existed prior to the 1962 datum line? 3. Did the Plaint comply with Order VII Rule 3 of the CPC regarding the identification of immovable property?Holding: 1. No, the suit was not maintainable as the Plaintiff failed to prove service of the mandatory Section 527 notice. 2. No, the documents produced did not conclusively relate to the suit structure or prove its existence prior to 1962. 3. No, the Plaint failed to sufficiently describe the property as required by law.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 527 of the MMC Act is a mandatory condition precedent for instituting a suit against the Corporation. While such a notice can be waived, the Respondent here specifically denied receiving it in their Written Statement, and the Plaintiff failed to produce the document in evidence. On merits, the Court found that the Plaintiff's documents, including a 1959 NOC and various agreements, lacked sufficient detail to identify them with the specific "suit structure" described in the 1995 notice. Furthermore, the 1942 and 1968 Survey Sheets did not reflect the structure. The Court also emphasized that under Order VII Rule 3 of the CPC, a Plaint must contain a description sufficient to identify immovable property, which was absent in this case, making it impossible to correlate the Plaintiff's evidence with the disputed premises.