1 WP No.2954/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2954 of 2011 Kishore Verhomal Dudani ... Petitioner versus Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai ... Respondent ... Mr.R.A. Thorat and P.J. Thorat for the petitioner. Ms. K.K. Soraan for respondent BMC. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 16th June 2011 P.C. 1. Heard both sides. 2. In my view, the impugned order refusing the amendment calls for no interference. Two separate notices, first dated 10 August 1976 and second dated 26 August 2009, under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act were issued to the petitioner/his predecessor. Two separate orders wee passed by the appropriate authority after granting hearing. The first order was in respect of a second notice. The order in respect of first notice was passed subsequently. 2 WP No.2954/11 3. Petitioner had filed the suit initially challenging the first order issued in respect of the second notice. After passing of the second order in respect of the first notice, he sought to amend the plaint to challenge the second order also. That application was rejected. 4. In my view, since two orders are separate, petitioner was required to file separate suits in respect of the second order passed in respect of the first notice. Trial court committed no error in rejecting the amendment. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected. It is however directed that the respondent municipal corporation shall not take any coercive steps for implementation of the second order i.e. order dated 9 March 2011 (Exhibit B to the Chamber Summons) for a period of four weeks. (D.G.KARNIK, J)