1 wp7258-11 jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7258 OF 2011 Hasmukh N. Malkan .. Petitioner Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others ... Respondents Mr. Ritesh Singh i/by Arun Sapkal & Co. for the petitioner Ms. A. S. Malvakar for respondent Nos. 3 to 7 CORAM : R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 3rd October, 2011 P.C. 1. The petitioner filed Transfer Application No. 29 of 2010 before the learned Principal Judge of City Civil Court, Mumbai, praying that Long Cause Suit No. 3674 of 1992, filed by the petitioner, be transferred to some other Court, i.e. to say the learned Judge Mr. V. S. Kulkarni at Dindoshi should not take up the matter. This transfer application has been rejected by the learned Principal Judge by his order dated 2nd August, 2010. The said order is challenged in this petition. 2. I have heard the learned advocate for the petitioner. 3. In the first place, challenging an order dated 2nd August, 2010, passed by the learned Principal Judge by filing the writ petition some time in the month of August, 2011 itself goes to show that there is delay in filing this 2 wp7258-11 petition. I have perused the impugned order. It is clear that the Suit No. 1783/1995 which had been filed by one of the defendants in Suit No. 3674/92 against the Municipal Corporation so as to seek protection in respect of the structure in respect of which a notice under section 351 of the M.C.G.M Act was issued, had been dismissed. The petitioner has filed a Suit in the City Civil Court being Long Cause Suit No. 3647 of 1992 in respect of the structure in question. In my view merely because learned Judge had an opportunity to deal with the said suit in regard to a structure in respect of which the petitioner has filed a suit, that by itself cannot be considered as ground for transfer. The learned Judge has done his job in the course of his duty. Even otherwise, the suit filed by one of the defendants being Suit No. 1785/95 has already been dismissed. In my view, no interference is required in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. 4. There shall be no order as to costs. (R. Y. GANOO, J.)