1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2458 OF 2008 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.584 OF 2007 Mr.Suresh N. Gore. ..Applicant. V/s. Mr.Prakash S. Dhekane & Ors. ..Respondents. Smt.Anita A.Agarwal for applicant. Mr.S.V.Pitre for Respondent. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : FEBRUARY 17, 2009. DATE : FEBRUARY 17, 2009. DATE : FEBRUARY 17, 2009. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This application is filed in terms of the liberty granted by this Court in its order dated 9th March, 2007. The Applicant on affidavit has stated that insofar as the disputed flat is concerned, the Corporation has not permitted change of user. In other words, the Flat will have to be used only for the same purpose as was originally permitted i.e. residential purpose. The communication dated 24th May, 2007 issued by the Corporation in this behalf is filed alongwith this Application, which supports that position. There is no reason to doubt correctness of 2 this document. 3. No reply has been filed to controvert the assertions made in this application though served long back and the application has been adjourned from time to time since October, 2008. Counsel for the Respondent/Writ Petitioner submits that he may be given time to take instructions. It is not possible to accept this request. There was enough time to the Respondent to file reply to counter assertions made. 4. As aforesaid, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the document at page 15 issued under the signature of Information Officer of the Corporation. There is no subsequent information placed on record, which would indicate to the contrary. Accordingly, this Application ought to succeed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). 5. In view of this order, the controversy in the main Writ Petition itself stands addressed. Inasmuch as Writ Petition was directed against the interlocutory order passed by the two Courts below taking the view that the Writ Petitioner is obliged to use the premises in question for residential purpose and no other purpose. It is on that premiss 3 the two Courts below have granted injunction, as prayed by the Plaintiff. In the circumstances, this order not only disposes of the relief claimed in this application but also the main Writ Petition as well. 6. Accordingly, Application succeeds. Writ Petition filed by the Respondent/Writ Petitioner stands dismissed and the interim order passed of the lower court stands revived. Ordered accordingly. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)