... 1 ... IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4286 OF 2005 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.28 OF 1997 Shri Motiram Shyamnarayan Gupta ...Applicant Vs. Shri Hiralal Kantaprasad Gupta & Ors. ...Respondents Shri Jitendra G. Damani for the Applicant. Shri R.B. Singh for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. : A. S. OKA, J. : A. S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : MARCH 18, 2006. : MARCH 18, 2006. : MARCH 18, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant who is the Respondent No.2 in the First Appeal. He states that the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein who are the Appellants in the First Appeal are trying to carry out construction after part of the suit premises came down. 2. The statement made by the learned Advocate for the Applicant has been disputed by the Advocate appearing for the Appellants. He states that the Appellants in the Appeal have applied for grant of permission to the Municipal Corporation for carrying out construction and unless permission is granted, the Applicants will not take any further steps. The statement is accepted. The Advocate for the Applicant ... 2 ... states that the Applicant has already submitted their objections in writing to the application for permission made by the Appellants. He submits that the Municipal Corporation should be directed to decide the application made by the Appellants on its own merits. In my view, it is not necessary to issue such direction as the Municipal Corporation is always expected to decide such application on merits. 3. In view of the statement made by the Advocate for the Applicant, this Application cannot be entertained as of today. Application is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE