: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.795 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2294 OF 2009 Babu Bhima Lashkare .. Appellant V/s. M.V. Omni Project (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. .. Respondents Mr. A.S. Pratinidhi for the Appellant. Mr. A.H. Shukla i/b. Shukla & Shukla for Respondent No.1. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 22 ND APRIL, 2010. P.C.: 1. The First Appeal has been preferred against the decision of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune dated 2nd February, 2009, dismissing the Suit No.770 of 2008 against respondent-defendant No.1 “for want of prosecution”. 2. This is a curious order passed by the trial Court, dismissing the Suit against the respondent- defendant No.1 without a trial. There is no indication in the order that the plaintiff had not : 2 : wanted to proceed with the Suit against defendant No.1 for it to be dismissed for want of prosecution. Nor is there any finding that the plaintiff was absent and, therefore, the Suit against defendant No.1 was dismissed for want of prosecution. Therefore, it is extremely unreasonable on the part of the learned Judge to have dismissed the Suit against defendant No.1 for want of prosecution. 3. The impugned order has been passed on an application made by the defendant No.1 in which it had raised several preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the Suit. No written statement has been filed by the defendant No.1. The preliminary objections are reproduced below : (a).The plaintiff has approached the learned Court with unclean hands. (b). The plaintiff had made incorrect, false statements in the plaint. (c). The present case is an attempt to extort money from opponent No.1 and if this type of litigation are going to be entertained, it is creating mockery of justice. : 3 : (d). The plaintiff has created fraud with learned Court and hence he is not entitled for any relief. 4. It is strange that the learned Judge has accepted these preliminary objections and dismissed the Suit. Each of these objections raised cannot be considered as preliminary objections. Each of these objections could have to be tried as separate issues by leading evidence. Therefore, in my opinion, the dismissal of the Suit is contrary to law and perverse. There is a complete miscarriage of justice which needs to be rectified. 5. Accordingly, the First Appeal is allowed. 6. The order dated 2nd February, 2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune in Suit No.770 of 2008, dismissing the Suit for want of prosecution against respondent-defendant No.1 is set aside. 7. The Suit shall proceed against both the respondents-defendants. : 4 : 8. In view of the above, Civil Application No.2294 of 2009 pending in the First Appeal does not survive and the same is dismissed as infructuous.