1 fa1609 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1609 OF 2009 Nazir Ahmed Zia and other ...Appellants vs. Muncipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Induprakash Tripathi i/b Mr.C.K.Tripathi for the appellants Mr.Vinod Mahadik for the respondent no.1 Mr.Ruben Fernandes i/b Mr.Ashwin Shankar for respondent no.4 Mr.Vasant Dhawan for respondent no.3 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MAY 5, 2011 P.C.: 1 The learned counsel for the third respondent states that within a period of eight weeks from today, the third respondent will make an application for regularization of the suit flats. The learned counsel for the appellant on instructions states that as the third respondent has agreed to apply for regularization, the appellants may be permitted to unconditionally withdraw the appeal. The learned counsel for the 4 th respondent on instructions states that the fourth respondent has accepted the impugned decree and he will not challenge the impugned decree. 2 The learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation states that the representation made by the third respondent for regularization has been already rejected. 3 If some additional Floor Space Index is stated to be available, the third respondent can be granted liberty 2 fa1609 to apply for regularization. There will not be any prejudice to the Municipal Corporation as the decree passed by the trial Court will become final. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants prays that even the appellants may be permitted to apply for regularization. If the law permits, the appellants can always apply for regularization and nothing prevents them from applying for regularization. 4 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Appeal is dismissed as unconditionally withdrawn. Statements made by the learned counsel for the 3 rd and 4th respondents on instructions which are recorded above are accepted. ii)With a view to enable the third respondent to apply for regularization and to prosecute the said application, it is directed that till 30 th September 2011, the first respondent shall not carry out action of demolition on the basis of the impugned notice which is the subject matter of challenge in the suit as well as the notice dated 6 th April 2011. iii)Till 30th September 2011, the appellants and the fourth respondent are restrained from creating third party interests in respect of their respective flats and from parting with possession thereof in favour of any third party. iv)The appellant will be entitled to refund of Court fees, as per the rules. v) Civil application nos.4089 of 2009 and 1730 of 2011 do no survive and the same are disposed of. JUDGE