1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISC. APPLICATION NO. 35 OF 2003 Goolam E. Vahanvati .. Petitioner V/s Ashok Shravan Patkar & Anr. .. Respondents Ms. Geeta Mulekar, A.G.P. For the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Hoshing for the respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 14TH OCTOBER 2009 P.C. : 1. This is an application under the provisions of the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1971. From the record, we find that the basis for seeking leave against the respondents are the cases listed against the respondents in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the application. Insofar as the cases registered against the respondents mentioned in paragraph 3 of the application, in three of the cases process has been issued. In one case, the complaint being Criminal Complaint No.217 of 2001 was dismissed for non- prosecution, but in respect of which, it is the contention of the respondents, a writ petition has been filed being Writ Petition No.896 of 2003 which is 2 pending before this Court. 2. There appears to be dispute between the petitioner’s family and the family of one Mr. Adawadkar. The complainant and his family members have filed five criminal complaints which are pending before thee Courts in Dhule. It is therefore clear that cases of complaints and cross-complaints. Section 2 of the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1971 requires that if an application made to the Court satisfies that a person habitually and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious proceedings, the High Court may order that no proceedings shall be instituted by him in any Court. In our opinion, once process has been issued in the complaints filed by the respondents herein against the other group, prima facie it would disclose that there is some merit in the matter warranting the Magistrate to issue the process. Prima facie, therefore, this would not come within the expression “habitual and vexatious” as these are cases of complaints and cross-complaints by two groups. 3. Considering the above, in our opinion, this would not be a fit cases to grant leave. In the light of that, the application is rejected. (D.G. KARNIK, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)