1 caw3010.09 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3010 OF 2009 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1644 OF 2009 IN REVIEW PETITION ST. NO.14541 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8340 OF 2008 Madhusudan D.Bhatt ....Applicant. Vs. Managing Trustee, the Framaroze Hirjee Soonawalla Bai Aim Hirjee Soonawala Trust & ors. ....Respondents Mr. M.D.Bhatt, applicant in person. Mr. P.M.Havnur, advocate for Respondent Nos. 4B & 4D. Mr. L.C.Jain i/b. A.D. Thorat for Respondent Nos. 1A & 1B. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED:- JULY 16, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the Respondents. My attention is invited to order dated 3rd February, 2003 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. 2 caw3010.09 Application No.3184 of 2002. The same reads thus: “P.C.: Heard both sides. 2. This petition has been filed by the learned Advocate General under the provisions of Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act (Act No.XL VIII) of 1971 seeking direction against the respondent not to institute civil or criminal proceedings in any court without the previous leave of this Hon’ble Court. There is also prayer for staying all pending legal proceedings instituted by the respondent in any court or before Competent Authorities. The respondent has filed his reply, in which he is praying for dismissal of the petition by trying to justify his action. 3. After hearing both the sides, the respondent agrees that in future he will not institute any new proceedings against Mrs. Parviz K. Irani, Mrs. Freny Darabshaw Shroff and Mrs. Aloo N. Jamboodiwala, all of whom are show to have been aged 88, 86 and 84 years respectively, without the previous leave of this Court, which is the prayer (a) of this petition. Ms. Kejriwal, the learned AGP, states that at present the only proceeding which is pending against the aforesaid ladies is a declaratory suit filed against them by this respondent in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai for a declaration of his rights in respect of the premises which have been surrendered by the aforesaid ladies to the landlord on 15/11/1997 who is in possession of the said premises and is also one of the defendants in that suit. Ms. Kejriwal on the basis of the instructions of the above ladies has no objection to the pending suit going on in the Small Causes Court as it will be landlord’s prime concern to defend that suit. So far as the respondent is concerned, he states that his application for execution of decree passed in his favour is the only proceeding pending in that court. In any way, there is no 3 caw3010.09 opposition in respect of the pending proceedings in the Small Causes Court. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, this petition can be disposed of by passing order: O R D E R The respondent is directed not to institute any fresh proceedings in any court, civil or criminal, against (1) Mrs. Praviz K. Irani, (2) Mrs. Freny Darabshaw Shroff and (3) Mrs.Aloo N. Jamboodiwala without obtaining previous leave of this court. The proceedings pending in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai between the above parties shall continue and are directed to be disposed of expeditiously. 5. With the aforesaid directions, the Petition shall stand disposed of. 6. Issuance of certified copy to the parties is expedited. 3.2.2003 sd/-A.P.Gonsalves.” 2. Counsel for the Respondents have invited my attention to the operative part of the said order, which specifies the persons against whom no new action before any court can be instituted by the Applicant. Respondent No.5 Mrs.Aloo N. Jamboodiwala is named as one of the person against whom any new proceedings in any court has been prohibited in terms of this order. In the circumstances, there is substance in the grievance made by the Respondents that this Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition filed by the applicant in 4 caw3010.09 the first instance. If so, the question of review against the said order does not arise. Accordingly, Review Application as well as companion application are dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)