1 901-906fast19162group ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.19162 OF 2011 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Appellant vs. Shri Mahipal Jain ...Respondent ALONG WITH FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.26358 OF 2011 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Appellant vs. Ramesh T. Ramani ...Respondent ALONG WITH FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.19176 OF 2011 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Appellant vs. Nanji Dhanji Vicchivora ...Respondent ALONG WITH FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.19172 OF 2011 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Appellant vs. Sandhya B. Vichare ...Respondent ALONG WITH FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.19165 OF 2011 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Appellant vs. Dhiraj S. Shah ...Respondent ALONG WITH FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.19157 OF 2011 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Appellant 2 901-906fast19162group vs. Jagdish S. Dedhia ...Respondent ALONG WITH FIRST APPEAL ST.NO.19152 OF 2011 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Appellant vs. Rayaji Baburao Jamble ...Respondent Mr.P.G.Lad a/w Mr.Vinod Mahadik for the appellant Mr.R.A.Thorat i/b Mr.Bipin Joshi for the respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2011 P.C.: 1 In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant which is recorded in separate order passed on applications for condonation of delay, appeals are forthwith taken up for final disposal. The statement is that the Appellant-Corporation has decided to withdraw the notices under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act,1888 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and orders passed thereon which were challenged in the suit as the Appellant-Corporation intends to issue fresh notices. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Trial Court has recorded a finding that notices under section 351 of the said Act, and the orders of demolition passed thereon are illegal and null and void. The submission is that as the notices and orders passed thereon are declared as null and void, there is no question of Municipal Corporation now withdrawing the notices and orders passed thereon. The 3 901-906fast19162group submission is that the findings recorded on the basis of evidence on record cannot be set aside only on the basis of the said statement. Therefore, as there is already a declaration of nullity, there is no question of accepting the statement of the appellant. 2 I have considered the submissions. The statement made by the appellant which is recorded in the order passed on applications for condonation of delay is that the appellant has decided to withdraw the notices under section 351 of the said Act and the orders passed thereon, as the appellant wants to give fresh notices. As the notices and the orders passed thereon as above are withdrawn, the very cause of action for filing the suits does not survive. An appeal is always a continuation of the proceedings of the suit. In view of non survival of the cause of action for filing of the suits, the decrees will have to be set aside only on that ground. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this Court cannot grant liberty to the appellant to issue fresh notices under section 351 of the said Act. The only statement recorded and accepted by this Court is that the appellant has decided to withdraw the notices and orders passed thereon on the ground that the appellant-Corporation wants to issue fresh notices. Therefore, no question arises of granting any such liberty. 3 Hence, I pass the following order : i) As the notices and orders passed thereon by the 4 901-906fast19162group appellant which were challenged in the suit have been withdrawn, cause of action for filing suits does not survive. Accordingly, impugned Judgments and decrees are quashed and set aside and the suits stand disposed of as infructous. ii)After fresh notices under section 351 of the said Act are issued by the appellant, it is obvious that all contentions on the legality and validity of the notices can be raised by the respondents. All such contentions are kept open. iii)Appeals are partly allowed on above terms with no order as to costs. iv)Civil Application no.3191, 4406, 3193, 3195, 3197, 3199 and 3201 of 2011 for stay do not survive and the same are disposed of. JUDGE