11 ao 1062.10.doc 1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1062 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1292 OF 2010 Sunil Laxman Bhosle & Anr. ... Appellants Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai ... Respondent Mr. G.B.Bhatt, advocate for Appellants. Ms. K.K.Soran, advocate for Respondent/BMC. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 6th September, 2010. P. C. 1 It appears that a Notice No.GEN/72/AEMC, dated 03.04.2007 was issued to the Plaintiff no.1 Sunil Laxman Bhosle. Another Notice bearing No.GEN/71/AEMC, dated 03.04.2007 was issued against one Rewa Parmar. The Plaintiff had filed the suit seeking declaration that both the notices are null and void and in the Notice of Motion also he claimed the reliefs against both the notices. It appears that the Plaintiff filed before the trial court only Notice No.GEN/71/AEMC, dated 03.04.2007 and a 11 ao 1062.10.doc 2 reply from the Municipal Corporation in respect of another Notice. The trial court rejected the Notice of Motion holding that the Notice No.GEN/71/AEMC, dated 03.04.2007 is not issued against the Plaintiff and it has been issued against somebody else. 2 In view of the the circumstances, the Plaintiff-Appellant seeks to withdraw the Appeal from Order with liberty to amend the plaint appropriately and to file the relevant documents before the trial court. The Appeal from Order stands disposed of as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty. 3 If such amendment is made, he shall be at liberty to take out fresh Notice of Motion and in that case the trial court shall hear the parties and pass appropriate orders on its own merits. 4 As the Appeal from Order is disposed of, the Application does not survive and stands disposed of. (J. H. BHATIA, J.)