1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7552 OF 2011 Roman Properties Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Mrs.Sitabai Ramchandra Niravdekar & Another ...Respondents Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b. Harakchand & Co. for the Petitioner Mr.S.P.Srivastava for the Respondent No.1 with WRIT PETITION NO. 7561 OF 2011 Roman Properties Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Mrs.Shivram Ramchandra Niravdekar & Another ...Respondents Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b. Harakchand & Co. for the Petitioner Mr.S.P.Srivastava for the Respondent No.1 2 with WRIT PETITION NO. 7943 OF 2011 Roman Properties Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Mr.Ajay Nandkumar Juvale & Another ...Respondents Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b. Harakchand & Co. for the Petitioner Mr.S.P.Srivastava for the Respondent No.1 with WRIT PETITION NO. 7941 OF 2011 Roman Properties Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Mr. Vijay Pandurang Juvale & Another ...Respondents Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b. Harakchand & Co. for the Petitioner Mr.S.P.Srivastava for the Respondent No.1A & 1B with WRIT PETITION NO. 7942 OF 2011 Roman Properties Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus 3 Mr.Vilas Shrirang Juwale & Another ...Respondents Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b. Harakchand & Co. for the Petitioner Mr.S.P.Srivastava for the Respondent No.1 with WRIT PETITION NO. 8167 OF 2011 Roman Properties Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Mrs.Sitabai Ramchandra Niravdekar & Another ...Respondents Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b. Harakchand & Co. for the Petitioner Mr.S.P.Srivastava for the Respondent No.1 CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 13th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1. All these petitions were heard for sometime. Learned Advocate Mr. Jain appearing on behalf of each of the petitioner had requested that the matter be kept back to enable him to take instruction. Hence all these petitions were kept back till 3.00 p.m. 4 2. As the matters were called out at 3.00 p.m. Learned Advocate Mr. Jain on behalf of the petitioner applied for withdrawal of this petition. Learned Advocate Mr. Jain submitted that as of today, there is no affidavit in reply filed by the petitioner in each of the suit in the main motion which is taken out by the original plaintiff seeking interim relief. Learned Advocate Mr.Jain submitted that since his clients are party defendants in each of the suit, his clients be permitted to oppose the main motion on the strength of the record which is before the court i.e. pleadings which have been exchanged between the original plaintiff and the Bombay Municipal Corporation in so far as the main motion is concerned. Request made by learned Advocate Jain to argue the motion on the basis of the record is fair and permissible as per the procedural aspect of the hearing of the motion. Since the petitioner who is common in each of the petition wants to withdraw the petition, the request can be granted. Hence following order is passed to dispose of this petition. ORDER i. Each of the petition is allowed to be withdrawn. The petitioner, who is common in all the petitions is permitted to appear 5 in the said motion and oppose the prayers set out in the main motion on the strength of the record in the main motion which is before the City Civil Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)