1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 550 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1989 OF 2009 Dahiben D. Rawal and others ... Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents Shri Omkar Gupte i/b Pradnya Dalvi-Wagle for the petitioners Shri S.R. Jaiswal for Respondent-3 CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 1st December, 2009. P. C. 1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the third respondent. The petitioners have prayed that the Suits bearing Nos. 640/1096 of 2001, 620/1061 of 2001, 603/1029/2001 and 585/1006 of 2001 filed by the third respondent in the Small Cause Court Mumbai against each of the petitioners respectively be stayed. The main contention of the petitioners is that the third respondent has got slum declaration set aside by filing an Appeal after 28 years and that in those proceedings, the petitioners were not impleaded. It is submitted by learned counsel that if the slum declaration was not set aside, the third respondent would have been required in law to obtain permission of the 2 competent authority before filing the suit. Learned counsel submitted that if this after Court, finally hearing this petition holds that the slum declaration was wrongly set aside then, the suits filed by the third respondent would not be tenable in the absence of the permission of the competent authority. He submits that therefore the suits be stayed. 2. It is not possible for us, at this stage, to stay the suits. The suits may proceed. Needless to say that if the recording of evidence in the suit is over and by that time the petition is not disposed of, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach this Court for the reliefs pryaed for in this motion or other appropriate reliefs. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of this matter. 3. Motion is disposed of. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (RANJANA DESAI, J.) jpc/-