ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7329 OF 2003 PETITION NO. 7329 OF 2003 PETITION NO. 7329 OF 2003 Ashokkumar Sureshkumar Mehta ...Petitioner Vs. Lalitkumar Deelipkumar Kothari & Ors....Respondents. Mr.Jayesh Kotecha for the Petitioner. Mr.Rakesh Dave i/by M/s. N.N.Vaishnawa for Respondent No.1. Mr.Siddhartha Murarka i/by M/s. S.K.Jain Associates for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 24th September, 2008. : 24th September, 2008. : 24th September, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. The Petitioner takes exception to the order dated 1st August, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Malegaon, District Nashik below Exhibit 45 in Summary Suit No.4 of 2002 whereunder conditional leave was granted to the Petitioner-original Defendant No.4 to defend the suit ( 2 ) subject to furnishing the bank guarantee to the extent of suit claim. 4. The Petitioner is the original Defendant No.4. Respondent No.1 is the original Plaintiff and the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the original Defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The Respondent No.1- Original Plaintiff filed a Special Summary Suit No.4 of 2002 for recovery of an amount against the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and the Petitioner. The Respondent No.2 to 4 filed an Application vide Exhibit 24 and the Petitioner filed Exhibit 45 in the aforesaid suit for leave to defend. Both the Applications are disposed of by the common order thereby granting conditional leave to the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to defend the suit subject to furnishing the bank guarantee to the extent of suit claim. 5. The Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 challenged this order by filing Civil Revision Application No.484 of 2003 before this Court. The Petitioner also filed the above Writ Petition. By the order dated 14th October, 2003, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order till further orders. The Civil Revision Application No.484 of 2003 came to be disposed of by ( 3 ) the order dated 15th June, 2007, however pendency of above Writ Petition was not brought to the notice of the Court. This Court by an order dated 15/06/2007 passed in Civil Revision Application modified the impugned order to the extent of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and they were permitted to file Written Statement on or before 31st July, 2007. The Trial Court was directed to decide the suit expeditiously and preferably before the end of February, 2008. 6. Mr. Rakesh Dave, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 makes a statement that in pursuant to the above order dated 15th June, 2007 passed in above Civil Revision Application, the Trial Court dispose of the Summary Suit No.4/2002 as against Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and the same is decreed. It is also stated that the suit as against the present Petitioner is still pending. 7. The above summary suit is instituted in the year 2002. The conditional leave was granted to the Petitioner on 1st August, 2003. However, that order was stayed by this Court by an order dated 14th October, 2003 in aforesaid Writ Petition. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner made a statement ( 4 ) that the stay granted on 14th October, 2003 is still in operation and therefore, the learned trial Court Judge could not dispose of the aforesaid Summary Suit as against the Petitioner. In view of the fact that the aforesaid suit is decreed against the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and so far as the Petitioner is concerned, the same is pending since the year 2002, in my considered opinion interest of justice will serve by directing the Trial Court to dispose of the above summary suit as expeditiously as possible by without insisting bank guarantee from the Petitioner, especially in view of the fact that the Petitioner is a broker and the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are purchasers and already unconditional leave was granted by this Court to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on 15th June, 2007 in above said Civil Revision Application. In above facts and circumstances, I dispose of this Writ Petition by passing the following order. O R D E R R D E R R D E R 1. The impugned order dated 1st August, 2003 is modified to the extent that the Petitioner is granted ( 5 ) unconditional leave to defend the suit. The Petition will file written statement within a period of three weeks from today. It is made clear that the Trial Court will not grant further time to the Petitioner to file Written Statement under any circumstances. 2. The Trial Court is directed to decide the Summary Suit No.4 of 2002 as expeditiously as possible and preferably before the end of February, 2009. 3. All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. 4. Rule made absolute in above terms. ( R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.)