: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 0 P ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION 0 P ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION 0 P ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.351 of 1989 SUIT NO.351 of 1989 SUIT NO.351 of 1989 Wopolin Plastics Limited .. Plaintiffs. Versus M/s.Veekay Agents Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. .. Defendants. Mr.Rafeeque Peermohiddin i/b.P.Mehta Mithi & Co. for plaintiffs. None for defendants. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 29th July, 2008. DATE : 29th July, 2008. DATE : 29th July, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Today, the suit was posted for cross-examination of the witness on behalf of the plaintiffs. It was noticed that issues have not been framed in the matter despite written statement by defendant No.3. In view of this, certain discussions went on in the court as to what future course of action to be followed in the present suit. : 2 : 2. Similarly, with the assistance of learned Advocate Mr.Rafeeque, I had tried to understand the real crux of the matter. The learned Advocate for the plaintiffs informed the court that the bill of exchange is said to have been executed by maker, namely, M/s.Bajaj Plastics Limited wherein the present plaintiffs was shown as an acceptor. The payee of the said bill of exchange was Forward Securities Leasing Limited, Bombay. According to the present plaintiffs, this bill of exchange dated 19.8.1988 was void for the reasons set out in the suit and as a result, the present suit came to be filed to seek a declaration that the said bill of exchange be declared as void or in the alternative voidable and ordered to be set up and cancelled by this court. 3. It is seen that the payee of the said bill of exchange had negotiated the said bill of exchange and as a result of that, present defendant No.3 Vijaya Bank became the payee of the said bill of exchange and that is how, the said Vijaya Bank was impleaded as party defendant No.3. 4. It is noticed that said Vijaya Bank had filed a : 3 : suit bearing Suit No.980 of 1991 in this Court against the present defendants as well as the present plaintiffs so as to recover the amount on the ground that said Vijaya Bank was entitled to enforce the said bill of exchange against present defendants and the present plaintiffs. This court is informed that the said suit came to be transferred to the D.R.T., Bombay as the claim in the said suit was for an amount more than Rs.10.00 lacs. This court is further informed by the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs though a party in the said suit before the D.R.T., have not filed any written statement. 5. Today, learned Advocate for the plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiffs be permitted to withdraw the present suit wherein it is prayed that the bill of exchange is void and does not bind the present plaintiffs in terms of what is being stated and averred in the present plaint and that present plaintiffs be permitted to put up appropriate defence before the D.R.T. in the said suit which is presently pending. 6. Learned Advocate for the plaintiffs sought liberty to withdraw the suit in the aforesaid terms. : 4 : 7. Since a competent court is handling the suit in regard to recovery of amount said to be due and payable on the strength of bill of exchange which is challenged in this suit, it would not be proper for this court to allow this suit where simple declaration is sought that the said bill of exchange is void. Proper course of action would have been to defend the said suit filed by Vijaya Bank wherein all issues concerning the validity and effect of the said bill of exchange and against whom the said bill of exchange can be enforced can be decided. 8. In view of this, I am inclined to allow the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit with liberty to the plaintiffs to contest the application proceedings before the D.R.T. which have since been transferred as stated earlier. It is required to be mentioned that this liberty granted to the plaintiffs by itself does not mean that the D.R.T. is ordered to accept the written statement which may filed by the plaintiffs in future whether the said written statement should be accepted or not is left open and the D.R.T. will attend the suit in accordance with the rules and practices governing the functioning of the D.R.T. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I pass the following order :- : 5 : O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R a) The plaintiffs are permitted to withdraw the present suit. b) Plaintiffs are granted liberty to defend the proceedings before the D.R.T. which have been transferred to it being Suit No.980 of 1991 with liberty to defend the proceedings which are instituted against them being O.A.No.221 of 2000 which is presently pending before the D.R.T., Bombay. c) It is clarified that this liberty granted to the plaintiffs is not an order directing the learned Member of the D.R.T. to accept the written statement which may be filed by the plaintiffs. d) It will be open for the learned Member of the D.R.T. to consider on merits and on the basis of the rules and practices governing the functioning of D.R.T. as to whether the said : 6 : written statement which may be filed by the present plaintiffs before it should be accepted or not. e) There shall be no order as to costs. Refund of court fees, if any, as per rules is granted. f) Original documents, if any, which are tendered by the plaintiffs in the office are allowed to be returned to the plaintiffs by following normal procedure. 9. Suit is disposed of as withdrawn with no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO,J.) (R.Y. GANOO,J.) (R.Y. GANOO,J.)