1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2008 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2008 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2008 Shree Rameshwar Tower Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ...Petitioner (Org. Plaintiff) Versus Hutchison Max Telecom Limited & Ors. Respondents (Org. Defendants) Mr. J.M.Chodankar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Navin Parekh, Senior Counsel, a/w. Mr. V.W.Apte, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Mr. U.K.Srivastava, Advocate, i/b. M/s. Consulta Juris, Advocates for respondent No.1. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 10th March,2008. DATE: 10th March,2008. DATE: 10th March,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The Plaintiff-Society have filed a Suit No.7756 2 of 1999 seeking declaration that the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have no right to enter into an agreement with defendant No.1 and to allow them to install mobile antenna and they also sought perpetual injunction. A Notice of Motion No.106 of 2000 was taken out by the Plaintiff-Society for restraining the defendants from putting up the mobile antenna tower on the 11th floor of the building and also sought mandatory injunction to remove the ladder embedded on the outer wall of the building. That Notice of Motion was disposed of on 28.7.2003 with a direction to defendant No.1 to deposit certain amount with the Court which they would have otherwise paid to the builder/promoter i.e. defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and the Court directed that the amount so deposited shall be released/paid subject to final disposal of the case and also directed that the amount shall be kept in fixed deposit with State Bank of India pending the suit. At that time, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were not parties but they were directed to be impleaded as parties. After they have been impleaded, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 requested the Court to modify that order, but the Court had refused to modify that order. 3. Thereafter, the plaintiffs made an amendment in January 2007 seeking direction to make payment for the mesne profits/compensation. Additional written statement was filed and the defendants raised the 3 question of tenability of the suit. Thereafter, the trial Court directed the plaintiffs to pay Court fee on the amount of Rs.8,97,690/- which was the amount sought to be recovered by the Society. On the basis of that, the plaintiffs deposited the Court fee and made further amendment in para 8 of the plaint about valuation and payment of Court fee. After that amendment, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order that in view of the said amendment, the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and accordingly directed to return the plaint to the plaintiffs to file the same before the Court having jurisdiction. Against that order, the plaintiffs have preferred the present Revision Application. 4. After some discussion at the Bar, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/revision applicants seeks to withdraw this Revision Application with liberty to make an application before the trial Court to revoke the amendments about the claim of the mesne profits and the valuation of the suit because according to him, if these amendments would not have been made, the suit was within the jurisdiction of the trial court and the parties would be governed by the order dated 28.7.2003 in respect of disposal of the amount deposited with the Court. 5. In view of the above, the Revision Application 4 stands disposed of as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty. 6. In view of this, defendants nos. 2 and 3 shall not be allowed to withdraw the amount, which is deposited with the Court till decision on the application which the plaintiffs propose to move before the trial court provided such an application is moved within four weeks from this day. When such an application is moved, the trial Court shall dispose of the same on its own merits. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)