1 wp3602.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 3602 of 2010 WITH Civil Application No. 55 of 2011 IN Writ Petition No. 3602 of 2010 Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation ..Petitioner v/s. Shri Tanaji Vyankatrao Ingale & ors. ..Respondents Mr. G.H. Keluskar for the petitioner. Mr. M.L. Patil for the respondents. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED :- FEBRUARY 18, 2011. P.C. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. 2. The Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dated 12th February, 2010 vide which the learned trial Judge has directed a reply to be filed by the Commissioner of the Petitioner Corporation to an 2 wp3602.10.sxw application below exhibit 85 and order dated 3rd March, 2010 thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for review. 3. The Respondents 1-3 had filed a suit directing the Municipal Corporation to remove the encroachment and demolish the constructions of respondents 4-23. In the said suit, an application came to be filed below exhibit 85 by the plaintiffs under Rule 1 and 2 of Order 11 of CPC and a reply came to be filed on behalf of the Petitioner Corporation to the said Application. The same was sworn by the Dy. Commissioner. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge vide order dated 12th February, 2010 passed an order directing the Commissioner of the Petitioner Corporation to file reply in response to the application below exhibit 85. An application for review of the said order was made. The same is rejected vide order dated 3rd March, 2010. 4. The Petitioner is a body corporate. Any replies filed on behalf of it would be on the basis of the official record of the Corporation. The Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation vide Resolution dated 27th November, 1998 has resolved to delegate the powers to the Dy. Municipal Commissioner for defending the suit in question. In that view 3 wp3602.10.sxw of the matter, I find that the insistence of the learned trial Judge on the Commissioner for filing the reply was not warranted. 5. The Petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 12th February, 2010 and 3rd March, 2010 are quashed and set aside. 6. If the plaintiffs find that the non-filing of the reply by the Commissioner has caused them prejudice, they would be entitled to raise this ground in the suit by taking out appropriate proceedings which would be decided in accordance with law. Since the hearing of the suit was already expedited in an earlier order, the learned trial Court is directed to decide the suit within a period of six months from today. 7. In view of disposal of Petition, nothing survives for consideration in the civil application. The same is disposed of accordingly. (B.R. GAVAI, J)