IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9424 OF 2007 Badhya Buchayya Ashayya (since deceased by his legal heirs) (A) Badhya Vithalrao Ashayya by his legal heir: 1(a). Badhya Renuka Vithalrao & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Smt.Durga Devender Kola ...Respondent ...... Mr.Badhya Devdas Ashayya for Petitioners. Ms.R.C.Nichani for Respondent No.1. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JULY 9, 2008. JULY 9, 2008. JULY 9, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This matter was called out yesterday when the Advocate for the Petitioners was not available. The Petitioner Mr.Badhya Devdas Ashayya himself appeared before the Court in-person and requested for indulgence. That request was accepted on clear understanding that when the matter will be called out today as adjourned matter, no request for keeping back the matter or adjournment on any count : 2 : will be entertained. 2. Once again, today the Advocate for the Petitioners is not present. The Petitioner Mr.Badhya Devdas Ashayya, who appears in-person submits that in that case, he will discharge his Advocate and would like to proceed with the arguments himself. Accordingly, the Advocate on record for the Petitioners stands discharged. 3. After hearing the Petitioner Mr.Badhya Devdas Ashayya at length, the position which emerges from his arguments read with the relief claimed in the present Writ Petition is that the Petitioners are ill-advised to challenge the Judgment and Decree dated 2nd February 1983 passed in Suit No.4072 of 1980 Exhibit D to the Writ Petition. This is so because the said decree has already been set-aside in Appeal from Order by this Court on 24th August 1984 being Appeal from Order No.167/1983. Pursuant to the said order, the Suit was restored to the file to be tried afresh by the Trial Court. In that sense, the Petitioners cannot be heard to challenge the self-same Judgment and : 3 : Decree dated 2nd February 1983 which has already been set-aside in the above said Appeal from Order. 4. The next Judgment and Order which is challenged by the Petitioner is dated 5th November 1984 passed on Application for permission to lead further evidence dated 5th November 1984 (Exhibit F). It is not in dispute that the main Suit itself was finally disposed of on 5th November 1984 and a decree was passed against the Petitioner. The said decree was challenged before this Court by way of First Appeal No.1132 of 1984 which was decided against the Petitioners on March 28, 2000 holding that the same was not maintainable. The Petitioners thereafter carried the matter in Appeal being Letters Patent Appeal No.222/2000, which was, however, withdrawn as noted in order dated 24th September 2004. In other words, the decree passed against the Petitioners has been allowed to become final. If so, the grievance of the Petitioners regarding non-permitting the Petitioners to adduce the additional evidence which has been addressed in the impugned Order Exhibit F, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, this Petition is : 4 : dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.