Arun Raghunath Palav And 10 ORS v. The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai And 4 ORS

rpwl-64.18 pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORIGINAL SIDE REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.64 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1987 OF 2015 Arun Raghunath Palav and Ors.

... Petitioners Vs.

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumba and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. R.V. Govilkar and Ms. Shaba Khan I/b. Govilkar and Associates for the Petitioners.

Ms. Pooja Yadav for the Respondent - BMC.

Mr. G.B. Walawalkar I/b. Mr. S.P. Thorat for the Respondent No.4 - SRA. Mr. L. T. Satelkar, AGP for the Respondent No.5. Digitally signed by Pallavi Mahendra Wargaonkar Date:

2018.09.25 15:12:08 +0530 CORAM :

A.S.OKA AND RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.

DATE :

21st SEPTEMBER 2018.

[In Chamber at 2.40 pm] P.C. :

Pallavi Mahendra Wargaonkar The review petition proceeds on the footing that L.C. Suit No.3014 of 2013 is not pending. When we made a specific query to the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner as to whether there is any specific order passed by the trial Court regarding disposal of the said suit, he states that there is no such order. However, he urges that in view of the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Anil Dinmani Shankar Joshi and Anr. vs. Chief Officer, Panvel Municipal Council and Anr.1, the trial Court may not treat the suit as pending. Firstly, we do not know whether any application made by the plaintiffs in the said suit for withdrawal of the suit is pending. Secondly, there is no order passed of withdrawal of the suit. On page 32 is a copy of 2003 Online Bombay 24

rpwl-64.18 the order passed in the suit which shows that in fact on 13th July 2018, the learned trial Judge treated the reply of the Municipal Corporation as a written statement of the Municipal Corporation and in fact, the suit was adjourned for settlement of issues on 17th September 2018. In view of the order dated 13th July 2018 fixing the suit for settlement of issues, we cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner the that suit is not pending. Even assuming that the application for withdrawal is on record, the fact that on 13th July 2018, the trial Court has fixed the suit for framing of issues on 17th September 2018 shows that the trial Court has treated the suit as pending. Hence, no case is made out for review. Accordingly, review petition is rejected. (RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)