1 AO-809-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 809 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1070 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1646 OF 2011 IN L.C. SUIT NO. 1563 OF 2011 Dr. Harisinh Purshottam Solanki ... Appellant/Plaintiff vs. Municipal Corporatin of Gr.Mumbai. ... Respondents/Defendants Mr M.A.Vohra i/b. Mr. Bipin Joshi,Advocate, for the appellant Mrs. K.K.Soraan, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 26th July, 2011. P.C. 1. After some discussion at the Bar, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant seeks to withdraw the Appeal and the Application with liberty to make a representation to the Municipal Authority i.e. Executive Engineer, Building Proposals,for regularisation of the disputed shed/covering within four weeks. The learned Counsel for the Municipal Corporation states that if such a representation is made, it will be decided as per rules within eight weeks thereafter. 2 AO-809-11.sxw 2. In view of the above, the Appeal and the Application stand disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. If such a representation is made by the plaintiff/appellant for regularisation within four weeks, the concerned Executive Engineer shall decide the same within 8 weeks thereafter. Till decision of the said representation, the parties shall maintain status quo. If the representation for regularisation is not made within four weeks, the Municipal Corporation shall be at liberty to take action on the basis of the impugned notice. Appeal and the Application stand disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)