: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 SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.67 OF 200 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.67 OF 200 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.67 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.81 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.81 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.81 OF 2007 Shri Chimanlal J. Joshi ...Appellant. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.J.S.Kini for Suresh Dubey, advs. for the Appellant. Mrs.Geeta Joglekar, adv. for the B.M.C. Mr.D.R.Singh, adv. for the Respondent No.2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 28th January, 2008. DATE: 28th January, 2008. DATE: 28th January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. During the arguments before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court has dismissed the notice of motion on the basis of reply filed by the Municipal Corporation pointing out that the repairs, which the defendant no.2 wanted to carry out were tenantable repairs and did not require any fresh permission. However, after that reply, the defendant no.2 had made construction so as to raise the height of the original premises and this could not be done without obtaining prior permission or sanction of the Corporation and this has not been considered by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the defendant no.2 pointed out that this point was :2: neither raised in the notice of motion nor by way of rejoinder nor it is raised in the appeal memo or in civil application before this Court. After some discussion at bar, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a fresh notice of motion. 2. Therefore, the Appeal stands disposed off as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. 3. As the appeal itself is disposed off, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)