: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.170 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.79 OF 2010 Sulochana Ramrao Naik & Ors. .. Applicants V/s. Gammon India Ltd. .. Respondents Mr. Pankaj Shinde for the Applicants. Mr. Jitendra G. Shukla i/b. G.H. Shukla & Co. for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 11 TH MARCH, 2010. P.C.: 1. This Civil Revision Application has been preferred against the order dated 8th December, 2009, passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay. The application at Exhibit-A in Suit No.1169 of 1983 filed by the applicants contending that the Suit was barred by the principles of res-judicata or analogues to res-judicata has been dismissed. 2. According to the applicants, the earlier Suits filed by the respondents covered all aspects which arise in the present Suit. The Suit filed by the applicants had been decreed in 1970 and the : 2 : respondents were directed not to take forcible possession of the open space which was in the possession of the applicants. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that the provisions of Explanation 4 to Section 11 are attracted in the present case and, therefore, the Suit is barred. It is submitted that all the reliefs claimed in the present Suit could have been claimed by the respondents in their earlier Suits being Suit Nos.7607 of 1975 and 7327 of 1975. The learned Advocate further submits that the matter which is now the subject matter of the present Suit ought to have been a ground of attack in the former Suits and, therefore, must be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially an issue in the earlier Suits. He, therefore, submits that the Suit is barred by constructive res judicata. 4. The present Suit has been filed in the year 1983 and the respondents have pleaded that the applicants were constructing a structure in the open space. The respondents have stated that they : 3 : became aware of this construction only on 21st February, 1983 and hence the present Suit. The prayer is for removal of the structure on the open ground adjoining the two storied structure. This prayer certainly could not have been sought in a Suit filed prior to 1983. In my opinion, therefore, the submissions of the learned Advocate for the applicants that the provisions of Section 11 Explanation 4 being attracted are unsustainable. 5. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court on 8th December, 2009. 6. The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. 7. In view of the above, Civil Application No.79 of 2010 pending in the Civil Revision Application does not survive and the same is dismissed as infructuous.