[ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1789 OF 2008 Viren Bhatia & Ors. ... Petitioners. Vs. The Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr.J.G.Aradward (Reddy) for the petitioner. Mr. U.J.Makhija i/b. Mulla & Mulla for the respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : P.B.Majmudar and : P.B.Majmudar and : P.B.Majmudar and A.A.Sayed, A.A.Sayed, A.A.Sayed, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : September 8, 2008. : September 8, 2008. : September 8, 2008. P.C. 1. Filing of this petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law. By filing this petition the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to regularise the suit premises, namely 6 godowns/ warehouses (Godown no. 9,11,13,2, 4 & 6 respectively) admeasuring near about 912.49 sq.mtrs. at Elphinston Estate, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents should regularise the possession of the said premises and treat the petitioners as tenants and should settle the dispute. In this connection, it is required to be noted that a decree of eviction has already been passed against the original tenant and the present petitioner thereafter obstructed the execution proceedings. The [ 2 ] obstructionists were heard by the Trial Court and as there was no substance in the said obstruction proceeding, the prayer of the obstructionists was rejected. Thereafter the matter was carried by way of First Appeal to this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the First Appeal however directed the petitioners-appellants to vacate the suit premises within a stipulated time on furnishing undertaking to the Court. Accordingly the petitioners have filed undertaking to the Court stating that the petitioners shall vacate the suit premises within the stipulated time and shall hand over the possession to the respondents on or before 1.6.2008. 3. It is an admitted fact that till today the petitioners have not complied with the said undertaking and in fact committed contempt by flouting the undertaking given to this Court. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the application submitted by the petitioners for regularisation has already been rejected even prior to the decision in the First Appeal. 4. In our view, considering the fact that the petitioners have flouted the undertaking given to this [ 3 ] Court and considering the fact that the obstruction petition has been rejected, in our view, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. This Court would not like to encourage such type of litigations whereby the petitioners, after giving solemn undertaking to this Court has flouted the same by not vacating the premises within stipulated time. 5. Under these circumstances, this Court would not like to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently the petition is rejected in limine. [P.B.Majmudar, [P.B.Majmudar, [P.B.Majmudar, J.] J.] J.] [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]