( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION USJ FIRST APPEAL NO.539 OF 2009 FIRST APPEAL NO.539 OF 2009 FIRST APPEAL NO.539 OF 2009 IN IN IN S.C.SUIT NO.3350 OF 2003 S.C.SUIT NO.3350 OF 2003 S.C.SUIT NO.3350 OF 2003 Mohd.Rafique Mohd.Siddique ..Appellant V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Bombay and Anr. ..Respondents ...... Mr.G.S.Godbole i/by Shashipal Shankar for appellant Mr.J.Xavier for respondent No.1 BMC Ms.M.M.Deshmukh, AGP for respondent No.2 ...... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 16th April, 2009 DATED : 16th April, 2009 DATED : 16th April, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The appellant claims that he was carrying on business of selling flowers with his structure at suit site near Haji Ali and the said structure got damaged as a result of a tree falling on it. The suit came to ( 2 ) be filed so as to seek declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to repair / reconstruct the said structure at his own cost and the Corporation should not interfere in the same. The suit came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 17th March, 2009 being Suit No.3350 of 2003. Appeal is filed against this order dated 17th March, 2009. 2. As the matter was called out, it is seen that the request for repair permission made by the appellant in terms of his application dated 2nd July, 2003 is not in the proper format and that it was necessary for the appellant to apply for repair permission in accordance with provisions of law of D.C.Regulation No.33(6) so that the respondent No.1 Corporation could consider the said permission and dispose of the said application on merits. 3. Learned Counsel Mr.Godbole appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that his client would make an application within 3 weeks from today in accordance with provisions of D.C.Regulation No.33(6) so that the Corporation can attend to that said application. He prayed that till the filing of the said application and for reasonable time thereafter, respondent No.1 should be prohibited from interfering with the business of the appellant namely sale of flowers. ( 3 ) 4. Learned advocate Mr.Xavier submitted that if such an application is made, it will be considered on merits and the order will be communicated to the appellant. Learned advocate Mr.Godbole states that he is not pressing appeal in view of the aforesaid submissions and developments. In view of the above, the appeal can be disposed of by passing following order. ORDER ORDER ORDER . At the request of the appellant, appeal is allowed to be withdrawn with no order as to costs. . Appellant is granted 3 weeks to make an application / proposal to the Office of the Executive Engineer, Building and Proposal City-I of respondents under DCR 33(6) for repair permission of the structure which was in existence prior to the appeal. Such an application shall be considered by respondent No.1 Corporation on merits and keeping in view the various policies framed by the ( 4 ) Corporation. The Corporation shall communicate its decision to the appellant at the earliest. Till filing of the application and communication of the order by the Corporation and two weeks thereafter, the Corporation shall not interfere with the business of the appellant namely sale of flowers at the suit site. (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)