JUDGMENT - REBELLO F.I., J.:---The revision is directed against the order dated 3rd August, 2002 whereby the preliminary objection raised by defendant No. 3 were rejected. The objection was as to the maintainability of the suit filed without issuing notice under section 527 of the B.M.C. Act. On a motion being taken out for injunction defendant No. 3 raised preliminary objection holding that the suit was not maintainable considering that the statutory notice under section 527 of the B.M.C. Act had not been served on defendant Nos. 1 and 2. The record would show that appearance was put up on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. However, the matter seems to have been argued at length by Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 before the trial Court. There is nothing on record to show participation by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 either in support or opposition to the objection raised by the defendant No. 3 which objection was heard as a preliminary issue under section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended in the State of Maharashtra. The issue before this Court would be whether the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the objection can be rai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document