1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 275 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4669 OF 2009 Shantilal K. Somaiya & Ors. .. Appellants Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents -- S/Shri S.U. Kamdar along with Chetan Kapadia and Avdhoot Prabhu i/by M/s. Hariani & Co for the Appellants. Shri R.M. Patne, AGP for the State. Shri Milind Sathe i/by Ghanekar & Co. for Respondent No.12. -- CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 27TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. Present appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 7th August, 2009. Primarily, the challenge raised in this appeal is that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are erroneous in view of the map at page 497 of the paper book where the lines drawn on the map show the Bombay areas between Mumbai City District and Mumbai Suburban District. At the very outset, we may notice that the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents made a grievance about the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the learned Single Judge in paragraph 13 of the judgment noticed that no interference was called for in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against which an appeal is not tenable. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants submits 2 that the appeal has been filed because the Petition had been filed by the Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereas the learned Single Judge in his judgment made a reference to Article 227 of the Constitution. We do not consider it necessary to examine this issue as the matter is pending before the Full Bench for consideration. 2. As far as merit is concerned, we find no reason to interfere in the judgment of the learned Single Judge inasmuch as in paragraph 14 of the judgment, it has been specifically noticed that the Petitioners themselves submitted before the Court that the Petitioners intended to file a civil suit for declaration, possession and other consequential reliefs. While accepting this prayer, the Court has not only granted permission to the Appellants to file suit but has also stated that the observations made will not influence the learned Single Judge in the suit. The Appeal is disposed of with the above observations and liberty as is granted by the learned Single Judge shall be available to the Appellants. We may further make it clear that all the issues and the contentions raised in this appeal are kept open. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, J