IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.312 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.488 OF 2010 Bhimsingh G. Parmar ....Appellant. v. The M.C.G.M. ...Respondents. Mr.V.Y.Sanglikar i/by Ajit J. Shobhawat, advs. For the Appellant. Smt. K.K.SOran, adv. For the Respondent/BMC. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : APRIL 13, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2 Plaintiff/appellant filed a suit no.3493/05 challenging the notice under Section 351 of the Municipal Corporation Act against the alleged unauthorised construction. In that suit, the landlord took out chamber summons to implead himself as party. That chamber summons was allowed and the landlord was allowed to be impleaded as party. The plaintiff/appellant did not comply with that order and did not make the amendment within prescribed period and, therefore, by passing the impugned order dated 12.3.2010, the trial Court dismissed the suit. That order is challenged in the present appeal. 3 The learned counsel for the appellant makes a statement that - 2 - subject to his right to challenge the order on the chamber summons, he will comply with the said order within two weeks from this date to which the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation has no objection. In view of the statement, appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and the suit is restored to the file of the trial Court with the direction that the appellant/plaintiff shall carry out amendment as per the order in chamber summons within two weeks subject to his right to challenge that order. As the appeal itself is disposed off, civil application stands disposed off. 3 Ad-interim order of status-quo to continue for two weeks and if the amendment is made till the notice of motion is heard. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)