1 25.caw-1336-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION jmi CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1336 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1357 OF 1997. P.A. Nathan. ..Petitioner. vs. Sanjay R. Shinde & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr. N.K. Singh, i/b. M.P. Vashi & Associates, for Petitioner. Ms. Snehal Ratnakar, i/b. Mr. Amol Mhatre, for Respondent No.1. .... CORAM : G.S. GODBOLE, J. DATE : 24TH AUGUST 2011. P.C. : By the present Civil Application, the following substantive prayers have been made by the Applicant :- “(a) That the hearing of the petition be expedited and the same be ordered to be placed on the board on a date convenient to this Hon’ble Court for hearing and final disposal. (b) That the first respondent may be ordered and directed to deposit in the Court the entire arrears of rent from 1-4-1992 up to end of December 2010 at the rate of Rs. 1,650/- with liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the amount deposited, and the respondent No. 1 may be ordered and directed to go on depositing the said amount month to month regularly.” 2. The Applicant is the original Applicant in Application No. 25 of 1994, which had been filed before the Competent Authority for eviction under Section 13A(2) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, which 2 25.caw-1336-11 has been dismissed by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 3rd January 1997, by recording a finding that the Applicant has been unable to prove the relationship of Licensor and Licensee as contemplated by said Section. 3. In the Writ Petition, by making prayer clause (c), prayer similar to prayer clause (b) in this Civil Application had been made. While admitting the Writ Petition on 14th March 1997, interim relief was refused. The Applicant had thereafter filed Civil Application No. 2664 of 1998 apparently for the same interim relief for directing the Respondent to deposit amount of compensation. That Civil Application No. 2664 of 1998 has been dismissed by Mr. Justice D.K. Deshmukh by an order dated 2nd July 1999. Perusal of this Civil Application shows that none of the aforesaid facts have been disclosed in this Civil Application and there is a complete suppression of these facts. The other averments about subsequent events about so-called dismissal of the declaratory Suit filed by the Respondent and filing of an Appeal in the District Court cannot be a ground for passing an interim order or for fixing the Writ Petition for hearing. 4. Be that as it may, in view of the two earlier orders refusing to grant interim relief in the Petition similar to the relief prayed for in terms of prayer clause (c) and dismissing Civil Application No. 2664 of 1998; the same prayer made vide prayer clause (b) cannot be entertained. Making of such a prayer, without disclosing the earlier orders, is an abuse of process of law and hence, the said prayer is rejected. 5. In so far as the other relief for fixing an early date of hearing is 3 25.caw-1336-11 concerned, the Writ Petition will be listed according to its year of filing namely, 1997 as per its own turn and cannot be assigned any fixed date. The Civil Application is rejected. [ G.S. GODBOLE, J. ]