1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. APPEAL (LODG.) NO.56 OF 2009 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION (LODG.) NO.148 OF 2008 IN S.L.P.C.C. NO.11973 OF 2007 IN PAUPER PETITION NO.4 OF 1996 IN SUIT NO.3993 OF 1997 Prakash Ganpat Sawant ..Plaintiff. Vs. Ravindra Babaji Satam and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. P.G. Sawant – Appellant present in person. None for the Respondents. .... CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 17th March, 2009. ORAL ORDER (PER DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.) : 1. The Appeal is directed against an order dated 7th January, 2009 of a Learned Single Judge on a Judge's Order. The Learned Single Judge observed that the Judge's Order is one more attempt by the Plaintiff – Appellant to execute a decree in a suit instituted by him which has been dismissed. The order of dismissal has attained 2 finality. Despite this proceedings were repeatedly initiated by the Appellant which were all rejected by this Court. 2. We have perused the record and heard the Appellant in person. In our view, the proceedings which have been initiated by the Appellant are a sheer abuse of the process of the Court. The suit for possession instituted by the Appellant was dismissed on 18th June, 1999. The Appeal preferred by the Appellant was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia (as their Lordships then were) on 4th August, 1999. Despite this, the Appellant has persisted in filing repeated applications for execution. Eventually, by an order dated 25th November, 2003 this Court allowed a Petition instituted by the Advocate General of the State against the Appellant under Section 2 of the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1971. The order was confirmed in appeal by a Division Bench on 14th January, 2004. In a subsequent order dated 12th February, 2007, which arose out of an appeal lodged by the Appellant herein in another Judge's Order, a Division Bench observed that the Appellant 3 was in the habit of filing of “applications after applications” without any justification. In a subsequent order dated 7th June, 2007 in another proceeding, the Division Bench observed as follows : “In fact, such conduct on the part of the applicant results in great inconvenience to the Court as well as waste of the Court time. Though this time, we refrain from imposing costs, the applicant is warned in case the applicant continues to file similar applications after applications in this matter in hand, the Court will be left with no alternative than to take appropriate action, including imposition of costs.” 3. In a Special Leave Petition arising out of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 7th June, 2007 the Supreme Court, while dismissing the Petition observed that it was an abuse of the process of the Court and was lacking in merit. 4. The proceeding which was instituted before the Learned Single Judge again was one more in a line of untenable applications moved by the Appellant. The order of the Learned Single Judge dismissing the application does not suffer from any error. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE 4 DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.