1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.513 OF 2010 M/s. M.B. Builders and Developers ...Applicant. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. C.K.Tripathi, adv., for the Applicant. Smt. S.V.Sonawane, AGP for the respondent no.1. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 14th September, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard. Perused the impugned order. Plaintiff/applicant had previously filed the suit no.1565 of 2010 seeking injunction against mutation of certain property in favour of the defendant no.2. That suit was withdrawn on 23.7.2010. Thereafter, he filed suit no. 1752 of 2010 on the ground that he had apprehension that the property may be further mutated in favour of the defendant no.3 and he wanted injunction against such mutation. The State was made defendant no.1. No notice was served under Section 80 C.P.C. The trial Court refused to grant leave to file suit against the State without service of notice under Section 80 sub-section 2 of the C.P.C. on the ground that in view of the facts and circumstances there appears no 2 urgency. The trial Court directed his office to return the plaint for presentation after compliance of the requirement of Section 80. 2 I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, therefore, the revision application stands dismissed. 3 At this stage, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/applicant makes a statement that he would delete the name of the State as defendant no.1 and would withdraw the suit against the State. If he makes such an application before the trial Court, the trial court shall proceed with the suit as against the remaining defendants. The plaintiff shall have the liberty to move fresh application for interim relief as against the defendant no.2 and 3, after deleting the name of the defendant no.1. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) 3