3 The matter was argued at some length at which point of time, Shri R M Vasudeo, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 i.e. the proponents of the application (Exhibit 37) made a statement that the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have no objection if the said paragraphs 2 to 6 are retained in the said affidavit of evidence. In view of the said statement made by the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 Shri R M Vasudeo, it is not necessary for this Court to give detailed reasons for setting aside the impugned order. The impugned order dated 25/02/2015 is accordingly quashed and set aside. Resultantly the said paragraphs 2 to 6 would stand retained in the affidavit of examination-in-chief filed to prove the said document dated 28/02/2013. It seems that by the order dated 24/01/2014 a learned Single Judge of this Court has directed the learned Judge of the City Civil Court to endeavour to decide the suit as early as possible. In furtherance thereof and having regard to the fact that the suit is filed for challenging the notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, the hearing of the suit is expedited and is directed to be disposed of latest by 31/12/2016. The above Writ Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is accordingly made absolute with parties to bear their respective costs of the Petition. All interim orders in the above Petition stand vacated.
