1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.851 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1022 OF 2008 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.851 OF 2008 T.V.Krishnan and Anr. .....Appellants V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Rajesh S. Patil, for the appellants Mr.V.K.Damle, for respondent nos.2 to 6. Smt.K.K.Soraan, for respondent No.1. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 07, 2009 P.C. 1. The appellants are the original plaintiffs who instituted L.C. Suit No.1448 of 2008, challenging the action of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, by which the plaintiffs have been asked to remove unauthorized construction of WC and bath, which is contrary to building plans. The Notice of Motion submitted by the plaintiffs has been rejected by the learned Trial Judge, against which this appeal from order has been preferred. 2. The learned Advocate for the respondent-Corporation submitted that the appellants/plaintiffs have a remedy of a statutory 2 appeal under Section 53(3) of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that appellants/plaintiffs are willing to prefer such appeal and that such appeal would be preferred within a period of three weeks from today. If any such appeal is preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs, the Assistant Commissioner, F-North Ward, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, shall hear the appeal on merits and dispose of the same expeditiously. Whatever may be the decision may be communicated to the appellants. Till the appeal is decided, the offending construction may not be removed. In case the decision of the appellate authority is against the appellants, it will be open to them to challenge the same in accordance with law. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 6 submitted that the respondents are the lessees of the suit premises and therefore, they are required to be heard. The appellants shall give notice to respondent Nos. 2 to 6 about the date of such appeal and if respondent Nos.2 to 6 have any grievance in connection with the subject matter, they may apply to the Assistant Commissioner, F-North Ward, and hearing may also be accorded to the respondents herein. Till the appeal is decided, interim relief granted earlier to continue and offending construction may not be removed. 3. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel for the 3 appellants submitted that the suit itself will not now survive and he would like to withdraw the suit. Intimation may be sent to the learned Trial Judge of the City Civil Court to keep the suit for preliminary hearing for disposal of the same and the suit may be disposed of in the aforesaid line within a period of two weeks from today. Writ to be sent to the learned Trial Judge immediately. 4. Subject to what is stated above, the appeal from order is disposed of. 5. In view of the disposal of the appeal from order, the civil application No.1022 of 2008 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)