1 App. 543/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.543 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2282 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1483 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.1008 OF 1993 Asgar Ali Akbar ... Appellant (Ori. plaintiff) Vs. Inamul Haque s/o Ashanbdul ... Respondents. Haque (deceased) & Ors. Mr. P.Y. Shinde, Advocate for appellant. None for respondents. Coram : D.K. Deshmukh & Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, JJ. Date : 3rd August 2010 PC : 1. By this appeal, the order dated 4th July 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Notice of Motion No.2282 of 2007 is impugned. By that order, the learned Single Judge has granted Notice of Motion No.2282 of 2007 in terms of prayer clause (a) and directed the Notice of Motion No.1483 of 2007 to be placed for hearing afresh to be decided on its own merits. 2 App. 543/2007 Prayer (a) of Notice of Motion No.2282 of 2007 reads as under : (a) “ That this Honourable Court be pleased to withdraw/set aside the order dated 30.04.2007 passed by His Lordship Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar in the Notice of Motion No.1483 of 2007 in Suit No.1008 of 1993 of the Plaintiff and fresh hearing be given in the matter; 2. Perusal of Notice of Motion No.1483 of 2007 shows that the Notice of Motion was taken out by the plaintiff for setting aside of the order dated 6th February 1998 dismissing the Suit No.1008 of 1993 and for bringing the legal heirs of deceased defendant on record. By order dated 30th April 2007, the Court had granted that motion in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (e). The net result of the order impugned in the appeal is that the Notice of Motion No.1483 of 2007 is to be heard again and the only reason why the court has directed that Notice of Motion No.1483 of 2007 should be heard again is that in fact before disposal of that motion, the legal heirs of the deceased defendant were not actually heard. Thus the whole purpose behind making the order dated 4th July 2007, which is impugned in the appeal is to grant an opportunity of being heard to the legal heirs of the deceased defendant before restoring the suit and before ordering that they should be brought on record. 3 App. 543/2007 3. We, thus see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.) ( D.K. Deshmukh, J.)