IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.3541 OF 2009 PETITION NO.3541 OF 2009 PETITION NO.3541 OF 2009 Rastogi Estates & Construction . Company Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioners V/s. Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika ... Respondents Mr.Murti i/b. Murti & Associates for the Petitioners. Mr.M.M. Malvankar for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. : SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. : SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE DATE DATE : 15TH APRIL, 2009. : 15TH APRIL, 2009. : 15TH APRIL, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 28th January, 2009 passed by the Small Causes Court in Miscellaneous Notice No.34 of 2007 in Municipal Appeal (St.) No.322 of 2006. By this order, the learned Judge has discharged the notice and concluded that the appeal which was dismissed for not fulfilling the conditions mentioned in the order dated 13th June, 2007 could not be restored. 2. By order dated 13th June, 2007, the petitioners were directed to deposit arrears of property tax of Rs.10,85,058/- on or before 13th June, 2007. This order was conditional and it was further directed that in the event the petitioners failed to deposit the arrears of property tax and to comply with the provisions of Section 217 (2)(d) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation’s Act, the appeal shall automatically stand dismissed. It appears that the petitioners deposited the said amount on 26th July, 2007 instead of 13th June, 2007. The petitioners contend that this delay occurred because the parties were trying to negotiate a settlement and therefore the money was not deposited as directed by the Small Causes Court. Admittedly, no extension of the period for deposit had been sought by the petitioners. 3. However, since the petitioners have deposited the amount within a period of one and a half month from the date stipulated for deposit, in my view, the impugned order passed is incorrect. The learned Judge ought to have restored the appeal since the deposit had already been made. 4. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. The appeal shall be heard on merits. .....