:1: :1: :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 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2440 OF 2007 Sardar Griha Cop-operative Housing Society Ltd. .. Petitioners. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. And The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay .. Custodia Legis. Mr.Vipin Kamdi for the petitioners. Ms.Vaidehi Mhaispurkar AGP for the State. Mr.S.N.Vimadalal i/b Fashion Pvt. Ltd. for the intervenor. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against an order dated 15th January, 2007 by which the application filed by the petitioner-society seeking exemption from the payment of repairs under section 83 of the MHADA Act, 1976 has been rejected on the ground that there is an order of injunction dated 6th July, 2005 passed in Notice of Motion No.922 of 2005 in Regular Civil Suit No.921 of 2005 restraining the corporation from transferring the property in possession of the society. Mr.Kamdi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this order was passed without hearing the petitioners. He relied upon the :2: :2: :2: judgment of this court in Vardhamankunj Premises Vardhamankunj Premises Vardhamankunj Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others 1999(1) Bom.C.R.636 of Greater Bombay and Others 1999(1) Bom.C.R.636 of Greater Bombay and Others 1999(1) Bom.C.R.636 in support of the contention that interpretation of the expression "vesting" employed in section 83(1)(g) would entitle the society to make such an application even during pendency of the civil suit and while the interim order in the notice of motion is in operation. I am not entering into merits of the case. However, I am satisfied that this petition can be conveniently disposed of with directions to respondent no.2 to consider and decide the application of the petitioners dated 24th November, 2003 afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard and after considering the judgment of this court in Vardhamankunj Premises Co-operative Society Vardhamankunj Premises Co-operative Society Vardhamankunj Premises Co-operative Society Ltd Ltd Ltd. (supra). Hence I pass the following order: . The order dated 15.1.2007 is set aside. Respondent No.1 shall decide the application dated 24.11.2003 afresh, as expeditiously as possible and preferrably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. The interim order dated 13th April, 2007 passed by this court shall remain operative till the disposal of the said application and for a period of two weeks :3: :3: :3: therefrom if the orders passed on the application are adverse to the petitioners. It is open for Rupam Fashion Pvt. Ltd. and two others, who claim to be the co-owners of the property to make an intervention application before the concerned authority. If such an application is filed, same may be considered on merits in accordance with law. While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. With these observations the writ petition is dispoed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)