1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1875 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 10179 OF 2010 Prafulla Pandurang Muranjan ...Petitioner Versus Nilan Harishchandra Muranjan & Another ...Respondents And Nilan Harishchandra Muranjan ..Applicant Mr.V.B.Naik i/b. Indian Law Alliance for the Petitioner Ms. Deepali Thakar i/b. Hemang Modi for the Respondent No.2 Mr.V.P.Sawant , Mr.P. Yadav i/b. Mr.Harshal Manik for the Applicant/ Respondent no.1 CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 15th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned Advocates on both sides. By Order dated 23rd November, 2010 passed in Short Cause Suit No.1215 of 2010 by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, the applicant was ordered to be joined as party defendant. By the aforesaid writ petition, the 2 petitioner i.e. Original plaintiff has challenged order dated 23rd November, 2010. On 21st March, 2011 at the stage of admission of the aforesaid petition, this Court has admitted the petition and granted relief in terms of prayer clause (b) of the petition i.e. Order dated 23rd November, 2010 is stayed. It must be mentioned that this Court, in addition to passing the aforesaid order has clarified as follows: “ However, it is made clear that the pendency of the present petition would not come in the way of the respondent no.1 (applicant- brcket supplied) in filing a separate suit for cause of action, if he has any against the present petitioner”. 2. After hearing learned Counsels on both sides, I am not inclined to stay the proceeding in Short Cause Suit No.1215 of 2010 on the basis of the present Civil Application. In my view, it would be proper for the present applicant in this Civil Application i.e. respondent no.1 in the main petition (hereinafter referred to as applicant) to adopt appropriate proceeding to protect his interest and as such the relief in the Civil Application cannot be granted. 3 3. After hearing this expression, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 submitted that the applicant, in the light of order dated 21st March, 2011 would like to file a substantive suit. He submitted that before the applicant files a substantive suit and moves the court for appropriate relief to protect his interest, it is likely that the aforesaid Suit No.1215 of 2010 may be taken up for further hearing and if that is done, the applicant would suffer prejudice. He, therefore, submitted that the proceeding in Suit No.1215 of 2010 be stayed atleast for a period of 15 days. 4. I have heard learned Advocates on this limited issue, and I am inclined to accept this submission. In view of the above, the Civil Application is disposed of by passing following order.. ORDER i) The statement made by the learned Advocate for the applicant, that applicant would like to file substantive proceeding in the light of order dated 21st March, 2011 is noted. Till 7th October, 2011 further proceedings in Short Cause Suit No.1215 of 2010 are stayed. It will be open for the applicant in the said new suit to be filed, to apply for appropriate interim reliefs. It is clarified that this Court has not 4 expressed any views on merits on any of the points which have been raised in this petition as well as Civil Application. The petitioner who has filed Short Cause Suit No.1215 of 2010, as mentined above, will be free to oppose the new proceeding which would be filed by the applicant. It is further clarified that even if the applicant files separate proceeding as per the order dated 21st March, 2011, as applicant/respondent no.1 in Writ Petition No.10179 of 2010, he would be able to contest the same in accordance with the provisions of law. 5. Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)