1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1284 OF 2009 IN L.C. SUIT NO.1690 OF 2007 Vishwanath Suraj Rajak & Ors. )..Appellants V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai )..Respondents ­­­­ Mr. R.R.Sharma for the appellants. Mr.J.J.Xavier for respondents/Corporation. ­­­­ Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 11th January, 2010 PC 1 Heard both sides. A short grievance of the plaintiff in the suit was that the pathway was raised in such a manner that his residential structure went below the level of the pathway. Learned Advocate for the BMC/Corporation has shown me photograph which indicates that the residence of the appellant/plaintiff is almost at the same level as the pathway. After taking instructions from the officer who is present in the court, he also fairly states that in order to prevent the water from entering into the house of the plaintiff, the BMC has no objection if the plaintiff raises the plinth up to 12 inches. The statement is accepted. Learned Advocate for the BMC also states that if a formal application is made, the necessary permission as aforesaid will be granted within a period of eight weeks from 2 the date of making of the application. This statement is also accepted. In view of the aforesaid statements made and accepted, no further order is required to be passed in appeal. 2 Advocate for the appellants states that since the statements are accepted, he would like to withdraw the appeal. Appeal is therefore, disposed as withdrawn in view of the aforesaid statements. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3