MP 1 AO31856withCA32392 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST.) NO. 31856 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 32392 OF 2010 Vishal Uddhav Gaikwad and others .. Appellants Versus Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner and others .. Respondents Mr. S. A. Sawant for Appellants. Mr. Ravi Kadam for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 03, 2011 P. C. : The appellants challenge the order refusing to condone the delay in filing an application for restoration of the suits which came to be dismissed for default. 2. With respect to the same challenge, the appellant had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 8843 of 2010. It appears that in the said petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioners made a statement that an appeal is provided for against the impugned order, and therefore, sought leave to withdraw the writ petition. The Court, without expressing the opinion as to the maintainability of the appeal, allowed to withdraw the writ petition. MP 2 AO31856withCA32392 3. Now the learned Counsel appearing on behalf the appellants, on re-examination of provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, states that the appeal would not be tenable and since no alternate remedy is available to him, the writ petition would only be the remedy wherein he can challenge the order impugned herein. He, therefore, seeks liberty to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a writ petition. 4. Liberty is granted to withdraw the appeal without expressing any opinion regarding maintainability of the second writ petition with respect to the same cause of action. 5. In view of disposal of appeal, nothing survives in the civil application. The civil application is disposed of accordingly. (B.R. GAVAI, J)