1 WP 4376/2011 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4376 of 2011 Shankari B Ajimal & Anr. .. Petitioner Vs Amritlal Mahavir Chourasia & Ors. .. Respondents Petitioner no.2 present in person. Respondent no.3 present in person. CORAM: D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 P.C: 1. Heard petitioner no.2 appearing in person. 2. In Writ Petition No.4545 of 1991, the petitioners therein, who claimed to be the tenants of the original tenant, had challenged the judgment and order dated 21st August 1991 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai. By an order dated 23rd July 2004, the writ petition was dismissed. The present writ petition has been filed containing the following principal prayers. 2 WP 4376/2011 "(a) The Hon'ble Trial Court at court of Small Causes, Bombay at its Bandra Branch be ordered to dismiss the R.A.D. Suit No. 739 of 2004 as not maintainable in view of para 6 of Judgment dated 23.7.2004 in W.P. No.4545 of 1991 in implementation of the said Judgment. OR in the alternative The Judgment dated 23/7/2004 in W.P. No. 4545 of 1991 be referred to H.H. Mr. Justice D.G. KARNIK for interpretation of His Honour's own Judgment in view of R.A.D. Suit No. 739 of 2004 filed by the Respondents No. 1 to 3/original Plaintiffs and Petitioners of W.P. No.4545 of 1991. OR further in the alternative The Trial Court in Court of Small Causes Court at its Bandra Branch be ordered to frame an issue on jurisdiction of Court to be tried first in RAD Suit No. 739 of 2004. OR further in the alternative Issues framed on 13.6.2008 and issues recasted on 1.2.2010 be further ordered to be recasted by taking into consideration the 3 WP 4376/2011 pleadings of both the parties i.e. Plaint, Written Statement and additional Written Statement and not on the basis of prayer clause. (b) Pending above Writ Petition the further proceedings of R.A.D. Suit No. 739 of 2004 be ordered to be stayed." 3. The points urged before me are in the nature of an appeal against my decision dated 23rd July 2004. Obviously this cannot be allowed. The writ petition is not maintainable before the very same Court virtually challenging the order passed in the earlier writ petition. So also no ground for review of the order has been made out. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition. The alternative prayer regarding interpretation of the order passed by me on 23rd July 2004 also needs to be rejected as the order is clear and unambiguous and does not call for any clarification. The writ petition is rejected summarily. (D.G.KARNIK, J.)