ORDER : R.M Chhaya, J. Heard Mr. Devan Parikh, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. S.P Majmudar, learned advocate with Mr. Yagnesh Joshi, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Harshit Karathia, learned advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 9 to 13 and Mr. Anuj Trivedi, learned advocate for respondent no. 16. Though served, no one appears for the other respondents. 2. This Court had passed the following order on 19.6.2017:— “1. Heard Mr. Deven Parikh, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Hiren Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Harshit M. Karathiya, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 9 to 13 and Mr. Anuj Trivedi, learned counsel for respondent No. 16. 2. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 30.12.2016 passed by learned Chamber Judge, City Civil & Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Ahmedabad, in Special Civil Suit No. 309 of 2013. 3. Considering the order impugned in this appeal, it deserves to be mentioned that the stay application filed by the respondents herein, is allowed and it was directed that the appellant original defendant no. 1 shall not make any construction without obtaining permission/sanction of plans and shall not make any further construction of any type. Learned Trial Judge has also further restrained the appellant original defendant No. 1 from preventing the opponents from using the area for parking vehicles as provided in paragraph 3 of the operative order. As far as the first part of the order is concerned, Mr. Anuj Trivedi, on instructions, states that the construction made by the defendants is already regularized under the provisions of the Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Act, 2011. He further submits that even the place for which the parking is sought for with temporary injunction has been granted is also regularized. Considering the provisions of the Act, the effect would be that the Corporation must have issued e-certificate. 4. In light of the aforesaid, the following order is passed:— Notice for final disposal, returnable on 29th June, 2017. Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service of Notice. Direct Service today is permitted for rest of the respondents.” 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record the undertaking of the appellant, which is taken on record, a copy of which is given to Mr. Karathia and Mr. Trivedi. The said undertaking reads as under:— “1. Direct Service today is permitted for rest of the respondents.” 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record the undertaking of the appellant, which is taken on record, a copy of which is given to Mr. Karathia and Mr. Trivedi. The said undertaking reads as under:— “1. I say that subject matter of the present suit i.e. the alleged illegal construction on the 4th and 5th floor as well as basement has been regularized by the Corporation. The photographs of the said construction, which was in existence even prior to the regularization are annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-I. 2. I further say that we do not intend to carry out any additional construction over and above what is regularized.” 4. Mr. Trivedi has also produced for perusal of the Court the original proceedings, whereby the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has granted e-certificate under the provisions of the Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Act, 2011, whereby the construction made which is also shown in the undertaking is regularized. 5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the order impugned, it clearly appears that the learned Trial Judge has, while disposing of the application for temporary injunction, has granted temporary injunction against the defendant nos. 1 to 3 not to carry out any construction without prior permission of the Municipal Corporation and secondly, the appellant and the members are permitted to park their vehicles in the cellar. As such considering the e-certificate, the Corporation has regularized the impeding construction. 6. In view of the undertaking, the order impugned is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellant shall adhere to the undertaking which is filed before this Court. 7. Accordingly, the Appeal from Order is disposed of. Parties are at liberty to approach the Trial Court for expeditious hearing of the Suit. 8. In view of the order passed in the Appeal from Order, the Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of accordingly.