1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4611/2008 (Tarachand M. Mulchandani vs. Corporation of City of Nagpur and others) CORAM : B.P.Dhamadhikari, J. DATE : 2 nd DECEMBER, 2008 Heard Advocate Shri Kothari, holding for Advocate Shri Ghare, for the petitioner and Advocate Shri Puranik, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. After hearing the parties, I find that the stand of present petitioner is, adjacent balcony similarly situated is already regularized by the Nagpur Corporation and therefore, the amendment proposed was to raise a ground on these lines. Advocate Puranik states that copy of amendment application has not been supplied to him. The copy of amendment is also not on record of writ petition. However, without going into the said controversy, I find, it is only a legal issue which can be argued without amendment. I do not find any prejudice to the present petitioner because of impugned order dated 11.8.2008. However, if ultimately the petitioner find himself prejudiced, liberty to petitioner to challenge that order after 2 adjudication of Regular Civil Appeal No. 225/2000/ With this liberty, the writ petition is disposed of. Advocate Puranik states that consideration of appeal on merits should be expedited. The appeal is of the year 2000. The appellate Court to proceed to hear the appeal and decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 31st of March, 2009. JUDGE Rvjalit