1 96011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 960 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 577 OF 2010 Rukhana Associates ...Applicant V/s. E. Square Leisure Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Ganatra Hotels Pvt. Ltd.) ...Respondent Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Counsel, with Mr. Vishwajeet Sawant and Ms. Usha Rahi i/by M/s. Mayur Narendra & Co. for the Applicant Mr. Vivek Kantawala i/by M/s. Vivek Kantawala & Associates for the Respondent. CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE: 8TH APRIL, 2011 P.C.:- Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. Two reliefs are claimed in this application. The first relief is to extend the time for expeditious disposal of the suit, as ordered by this Court on 2nd July, 2010. By the said order, the trial Court was asked 2 96011 to dispose of the suit within four months from the date of the order. That period is already over. However, the trial Court could not conclude the same because of the interim applications by third party and also by the plaintiff himself. That impediment is over after rejection of the concerned applications. Now, the suit can proceed further in terms of observations made in order dated 2nd July, 2010 passed in First Appeal No. 577 of 2010. We have already extended time up to 13th June, 2011 for disposal of the suit. In that sense, nothing survives for consideration in prayer clause (a). 3. So far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, the argument of the applicant is that, in operative order of clause (c), this Court has directed the trial Court to hear the suit from the stage of oral arguments. According to the applicant, after the remand order was passed, third party moved the Court for impleadment in the pending suit. As a result, the hearing of the suit cannot be confined from the stage of the oral arguments, but ought to be on all aspects of the matter, which may be agitated by the third party. The argument, though attractive at the first blush, will have to be stated to be rejected, inasmuch as it is indisputable that the application moved by the third party was rejected by 3 96011 the trial Court. Indeed, it was rejected, because the direction given by this Court was to hear the suit only from the stage of oral arguments. 4. Notably, even the plaintiff moved application for impleading third party as defendant in the suit. That application was also rejected by the trial Court on the same reasoning as recorded for rejecting the application taken out by the third party. 5. The applicant moved this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 1863 of 2011, challenging the order of the trial Court, which petition came to be withdrawn on 4th March, 2011. In other words, the order passed by the trial Court has been accepted by the plaintiff for the time being, with liberty to challenge the correctness thereof, in the event the plaintiff is required to file appeal against the final judgment and decree. The fact remains that, now, the controversy regarding impleadment of third party does not survive for consideration before the trial Court. 6. In that view of the matter, the question of allowing the parties to re-open the trial does not arise. As has been observed in judgment dated 2nd July, 2010 passed in First Appeal No. 577 of 2010, the trial Court shall proceed with the suit from the stage of 4 96011 oral arguments, and decide the same, one way or the other, in accordance with law, and the observations made in the said decision. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the relief claimed in prayer clause (b) will have to be rejected. 8. So far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, the same is incidental prayer to relief (b) of the application. Since relief (b) has already been negatived, the question of acceding to the request of the applicant to direct the trial Court to hear all applications in the said suit on merits does not arise, as that stage has already culminated with withdrawal of Writ Petitions No. 1863 and 1887 of 2011. 9. Application is disposed of accordingly. A.A. SAYED, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.