1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6378 OF 2009 Rajiv Anantrai Parekh & Anr. ... Petitioners Vs. The Board of trustees of the Port of Bombay Respondents Mr. Shyam Mehta i/b. Wadia Ghandy & Co., Advocates, for the petitiners. Mr. U.J.Makhija, Senior Advocate, with Mr. S.K. Chari & Mrs. Kavita Anchan i/b. M.V.Kini & Co., Advcates for the respondents. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 10th November, 2009. P.C. 1. The petitioners by the present petition, have prayed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 6.10.2008 passed by the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai in Appeal No.685/2000 and the Judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge of the Small Causes Court Obstructionist Notice No.1/1987 in L.E. & C Suit No.426/576 of 1978. 2. The other relief sought for is to direct the respondents herein to settle the case of the petitioners and grant the petitioners herein a long lease of 30 years as requested by letter/application dated 22.7.2008 and certain other consequential reliefs. 2 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. In our opinion, there is total misjoinder of causes of action. It is the case of the petitioners that they are relying on the Judgment of the Supreme Court wherein compromise terms supplied have been accepted in terms of Para 40 (ii) as set out in the Judgment in Jamshed Hormusji Wadia vs. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai & Anr.(2004) 3 SCC 214. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that they were the obstructionists in the proceedings pending before the Small Causes Court and considering the compromise terms, even obstructionists have been conferred a right to take on lease the land from the Port Trust. 6. In the first instance, insofar as the relief (a) is concerned, that is totally distinct to the reliefs sought in terms of prayer clause (b) in the petition. There is a decree for eviction against the main lessee in the proceedings filed by respondent No.1. In those proceedings, the petitioners herein had taken out obstructionist proceedings. Those proceedings were rejected. It is the case of the petitioners that they had filed three C.R.As in 3 separate matters which were withdrawn on 18th June, 2009 with liberty to file appropriate proceedings in 3 appropriate Court. In these circumstances, the petitioners have filed the present petition joining both causes of action. In our opinion, prayer clause (a) is distinct and separate from prayer clause (b). The parties will have to take recourse to the remedy available under the Act against rejection of obstructionist proceedings. 7. On behalf of the Respondent-Corporation, the learned Counsel, in view of the mistaken advice which the petitioners had, makes a statement that they have no objection to the petitioners herein filing fresh C.R.A. and that they will not raise any objection as to limitation, considering the matter was pending before this Court.The statement is accepted. The petitioners to file C.R.A. Within 30 days from today. 8. Insofar as the relief regarding grant of lease to the petitioners in terms of the compromise is concerned, considering the correspondence, respondent No. 1 is directed to take a decision on the application dated 22nd July,2008 within 8 weeks from today. With the above observations, the Petition is disposed of. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)