1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.925 OF 2009 IN A.O. STAMP NO.17672 OF 2009 WITH A.O. STAMP NO.17672 OF 2009 WITH C.A.STAMP NO.17675 OF 2009 Mohan Ganga Ram Gehi and ors. ..Appellants. Vs. Assistant Municipal Commissioner and ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Jimy Pochkhanawal i/by Vinod Jawale for the Applicant. Mrs. K.K. Soraam for the B.M.C. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 30TH JULY, 2009 PC : 1. This is an application for condonation of four days delay in filing the appeal. After hearing both the sides, for the reasons stated in the application and which are accepted, application is allowed and stands disposed off. Office to number the appeal. 2 A.O. STAMP NO.17672 OF 2009 1. This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiffs impugning an order dated 18.6.2009 passed by the City Civil Court below Exh.l5 in L.C.Suit No.2221/2008. By the impugned judgment and order, notice of motion filed by the appellants in the aforesaid suit has been dismissed. The ground taken is that the impugned notice U/s.53 of the MRTP Act is vague in so far as it does not specify the alleged illegal construction. The second ground is that the notice is not served upon the owners of the property or the occupying company but is merely served upon the Manager of the occupying company. The Corporation has filed its written statement but the same does not specify as to who is the owner of the property in the Municipal record. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation states that, if liberty is granted to issue a fresh notice under Section-53 of the M.R.T.P. Act or any other provision of the 3 B.M.C. Act against the alleged unauthorized construction giving better particulars of the unauthorized construction and permission to serve the same upon the owners as well as occupants then the order impugned in the suit can be withdrawn and fresh action will be taken in accordance with law. The learned Advocate for the appellants states that if this course is followed then he has no objection to withdraw this appeal as well as suit. In the circumstances, statement made by the Advocate for the respondent-Corporation is accepted. The impugned order passed by the Corporation stands withdrawn but they have liberty to issue fresh notice giving particulars of the unauthorized structure and serve the same upon the owners and the occupants. The owners and occupants thereafter will be at liberty to reply to the said notice and take any other action under B.M.C. Act. In view of the directions and liberty as granted, appeal as well as suit stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. The City Civil Court will 4 pass a formal order regarding the dismissal of the suit. It is made clear that, as the suit itself is withdrawn the impugned order stands set aside. CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO. 17675 OF 2009 1. As the appeal from order is itself dismissed, the application filed by the applicants for stay of the impugned order also stands dismissed as withdrawn. ( R.S.MOHITE, J.)