1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 3445 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 3445 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 3445 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3446 OF 2008 IN SUIT LODGING NO. 285 OF 2008 M/s. M. Suresh Company Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. ..Appellants (Org. Plaintifs) Versus Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai. ..Respondent (Org. Defendant) Mr. V.A.Thorat, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Prakash G. Lad, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. N.V.Walawalkar, Senior Counsel, a/w. Mrs. Geeta Joglekar, Advocate, for respondent No.1. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 12th February,2008. DATE: 12th February,2008. DATE: 12th February,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Office objections waived. Both these matters be registered. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 3. Previously, in A.O.1001/2007 arising out of a Notice of Motion taken out by M/s. Janus Investments Investment Pvt. Ltd. in Suit No.2438 of 2006, this Court had passed an order on 31.1.2008 wherein certain observations were made in para 4 and held that the said suit does not survive and the Appeal was dismissed. 4. After that order, the respondent No.1-defendant - Municipal Corporation has issued notice to the present appellants/plaintiffs for demolition of the wooden cabin structure, etc. which was shown as item No.1 in the notice dated 1.6.2006. The plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 15 who are the occupants and plaintiff No.16, who is a builder as well as one of the occupants filed the suit challenging the action of the Municipal Corporation on the ground that show cause notice has not been issued to them and order has been issued for demolition of the structure as per item No.1 of the said notice dated 1.6.2006. They also contended that the plaintiffs are only licensees in the said premises while the premises are already sold away to the persons shown in the list, Exhibit "A" and notice has not been issued to them in this respect. They also took out Notice of Motion seeking stay to the action of the Municipal Corporation. Ad-interim relief is refused by the trial Court,while 3 the Notice of Motion is still pending. 5. After some discussion at the Bar, the learned Senior Counsel for Municipal Corporation makes a statement that the Corporation will withdraw the notice issued to the plaintiffs under Section 488 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and seeks liberty to issue notice to the plaintiffs as well as the owners of the premises shown in the list, Exhibit "A" for taking action as per law. 6. The said statement is accepted and liberty granted. 7. In view of the aforesaid statement made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants seeks to withdraw the Appeal and also states that the plaintiffs will move the trial Court for withdrawal of the Suit. 8. Appeal stands disposed of as withdrawn. 9. As the Appeal itself is disposed of, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. 4 (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)