1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO.17636 OF 2010 WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER STAMP NO.9501 OF 2010 Jehangir R. Cooper Since Deceased Smt. Roda J. Cooper Since Deceased RatanJ.Cooper& Ors. ...Applicants/Appellants. v. 1 Adi R. Cooper & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. R.B.Jaiswal, adv. for the applicants/Appellants. Mr.Niranjan Pandit i/by Shri Hemant Sethi & Co., adv. for the respondent nos.1 and 3(D). CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 4th October, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The present applicants had filed S.C.Suit No.9433 of 1990 seeking a decree restraining the defendants from dispossessing them from the suit premises without following the due process of law. The suit came to be dismissed on 20.2.2002 by the trial Court observing that the defendants have already filed the suit in the year 1993 for eviction and possession and, thus, they have commenced due process of law for that 2 purpose and, therefore, no cause of action survives. The applicants took out notice of motion no.2194 of 2009 for recalling that order on the ground that High Court had directed that both the suits, i.e., suit filed by the present applicants as well as suit filed by the respondents be decided together. That notice of motion came to be rejected by the impugned order, hence, the appeal. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By the order dated 2nd September, 2001 in Appeal From Order No.429 of 1993 filed by the present applicants, this Court had disposed off the Appeal From Order by observing that the impugned order was in operation for about 10 years and no harm would be caused for continuing for six months and it was pointed out by the respondents that S.C.Suit No. 9433 of 1990 filed by the present applicants/appellants therein had become infructuous. The learned Judge observed that whether the suit had become infructuous or not that can also be looked into at the time of final disposal of both the suits. It is material to note that the City Civil Court had passed the order dismissing the suit on 20.2.2002 on the ground that there was no cause of action in view of the other suit filed by the defendants therein for eviction and possession. 3 The very purpose of filing the suit by the present 3 applicants was served when the respondents filed suit for eviction and possession. In view of that, respondents could not have taken forcible possession of the premises from the applicants. Applicants kept quiet for almost eight years and after about eight years, they took out the notice of motion to recall that order. No plausible explanation is given for such long delay. The learned counsel for the respondents makes a statement even today that the respondents will not evict the applicants from the premises without following the due process of law. This provides complete protection to the present applicants. In view of this, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order rejecting notice of motion. Therefore, question of restoration of suit no.9433 of 1990 does not arise nor it is necessary to direct that both the suits be heard together and disposed off. 4 Therefore, the application as well as appeal stand dismissed. The trial Court shall now expedite the hearing and dispose off the suit no.2788 of 1993 as early as possible. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) 4