ORDER : 1. In the present special leave petition, the petitioner who is respondent no. 3 before the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 6607 of 2024 challenges the judgment and order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the Bombay High Court, wherein the petition is disposed of by issuing certain directions. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner - New Shree Swami Samartha Borivade Housing Company Pvt. Ltd. and Others i.e. respondent no. 1 in present special leave petition. Though various grounds are raised in special leave petition in challenge to the judgment dated 30.04.2025, the thrust of submission by Ld. senior advocate Sh. Ahmadi is that the High Court failed to appreciate the important fact in the matter and the order of the High Court proceeded on an assumption. 2. The principal prayer in the writ petition was for issuance of a writ of mandamus and the prayer reads thus: “(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction requiring Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to initiate proceedings under section 260 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act read with sections 52 to 5 of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 against Respondent No. 3 and its Trustees, being Respondent Nos. 4 to 9, for demolishing the said unauthorized and illegal encroachment on portion of the said lands i.e. the portion located near the western boundary of the lands bearing Survey No. 46 of village Borivade as indicated in pink, red and green outline on the plan being Exhibit-A.” 3. Ld. senior counsel Sh. Ahmadi, submits that firstly, when the petition was filed before the High Court of Bombay, the regular Civil Suit No. 318/2002 was pending adjudication before Jt. Civil Judge Sr. Division at Thane. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, certain interim orders were passed and these orders were subjected to challenge before this court also. Those Special Leave Petitions were disposed of in due course. By one of the orders dated 10.03.2025 passed in the writ petition, a direction was issued to demolish the illegal structure being a ground + 1 storied construction admeasuring about 60 ft. x 60 ft. and 10 ft. x 20 ft. within stipulated period of two weeks. Those Special Leave Petitions were disposed of in due course. By one of the orders dated 10.03.2025 passed in the writ petition, a direction was issued to demolish the illegal structure being a ground + 1 storied construction admeasuring about 60 ft. x 60 ft. and 10 ft. x 20 ft. within stipulated period of two weeks. The said direction was not complied by the concerned authority, within the stipulated time. Subsequently and much later the structure was demolished and a statement was made on behalf of TMC by way of an affidavit that the demolition of the structure was completed and the order dated 10.03.2025 stood fully complied with. The reference to this fact was made in Para 4 of the impugned order of the High Court. 5. There is also reference to another additional structure which is treated as an illegal structure on the basis of report of PWD Department. The High Court has directed demolition of the said structure of which the petitioner is aggrieved. It is a submission of Ld. Sr. Adv. Sh. Ahmadi that neither an exercise was undertaken by a competent authority to specify the area whether illegal or otherwise nor there was any such declaration by any competent authority. The further submission of Mr. Ahmadi is that the High Court on an assumption that the civil suit is pending for adjudication, issued direction under clauses (c) and (d) of Para 12. The same reads as follows: “(c) We direct the Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Thane to dispose the said Suit mentioned in the Affidavit, as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of 6 months from the date of this Order. (d) We further direct the Municipal Commissioner of the TMC to monitor and ensure that no adjournments are taken by TMC on any ground whatsoever in the said Suit.” 6. Sh. Ahmadi then submits that the High Court vide judgment and order dated 30.04.2025 disposed the writ petition with direction but a day before, an affidavit was filed before the High Court and the fact of disposal of the civil suit was brought to the notice of the High Court. Sh. Ahmadi then submits that this fact of disposal of the civil suit was also pointed out before the High Court by way of oral submissions advanced through the Ld. counsel representing the petitioner in the writ petition. Sh. Ahmadi then submits that this fact of disposal of the civil suit was also pointed out before the High Court by way of oral submissions advanced through the Ld. counsel representing the petitioner in the writ petition. Sh. Ahmadi invites our attention to the copy of the affidavit placed on record and submits that even in the list of the documents annexed to the affidavit the copy of the judgment and order passed by the civil court finds place as Annexure P-31. 7. Ld. senior advocate Ms. Madhavi Divan appears on caveat for the original petitioners and respondent no. 1 and 2 in the present special leave petition. Ms. Divan on the disposal of the civil suits fairly admits the fact that the civil suit is decided. 8. In the backdrop of these facts, when it was put to Ld. Sr. Adv. Sh. Ahmadi that in such a situation, the petitioner can avail the other remedy permissible under law. Shri. Ahmadi fairly submits before this Court that he be permitted to approach the Bombay High Court by availing such remedy particularly by filing an application seeking recall of the order. 9. Ms. Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 is also not having any serious objection except the submission that in such a recourse respondent no. 1 also be granted an opportunity of hearing before the High Court. 10. Accordingly, Sh. Ahmadi submits that by clause (a) of Para 12 of the directions, the Municipal Commissioner, Thane has been directed to conduct an exercise of verification and then to demolish the balance portion within stipulated period and as such the petitioner be protected for some period by directing the parties to maintain status quo. Accordingly, we dispose of the special leave petition as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate legal remedy including filing of an application before the Bombay High Court, seeking recall of the order. Needless to state that in case such application is filed before the High Court, the high court to decide the same as early as possible by giving an equal opportunity for hearing to all the concerned parties. The parties are directed to maintain status quo for the period of ten days from today. Needless to state that in case such application is filed before the High Court, the high court to decide the same as early as possible by giving an equal opportunity for hearing to all the concerned parties. The parties are directed to maintain status quo for the period of ten days from today. We, however, make it clear, we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the case, as such the high court is at liberty to decide the application if so, filed on its own merits. We further provide that in case any fresh adverse order is passed, the petitioner shall be entitled to challenge the same by filing a fresh Special Leave Petition. 11. In view of the above the present SLP is disposed of accordingly.