IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.2588 OF 2005 PETITION NO.2588 OF 2005 PETITION NO.2588 OF 2005 Shri Arihant Apartment Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Anr..Petitioners Vs,. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Bharat N. Mehta, for the Petitioners Mrs. A.K. Savla, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Girish Kulkarni with Ms. Swati Deshpande i/b. M.S. Bodhanwala & Co., for respondent Nos. 5 to 6. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: F.I. F.I. F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE: DATE: DATE: 16TH OCTOBER,2006 16TH OCTOBER,2006 16TH OCTOBER,2006 P.C. . Rule. Heard forthwith. The petitioners have two grievances. Firstly, that a room has been put up by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on the terrace which has been regularised by respondent No.1. The case of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 is that the said area was sold to them by the Builder. That issue is before the Competent forum. If the petitioner succeeds before the Competent forum it will be open to them to move the respondent No.1 based on that judgment and it is for the respondent No.1 thereafter to act according to law. 2. The second issue is a dividing wall on the terrace. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in the approved plan there was no dividing wall. It will be open to the petitioners to file a representation to respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 after hearing the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to pass appropriate orders according to law but not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of representation from the petitioners. 3. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (F.I. (F.I. (F.I. REBELLO, J) REBELLO, J) REBELLO, J) (ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA,J). V. MOHTA,J). V. MOHTA,J).