1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 188 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3403 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 1823 OF 2008 Dilip Jamunadas Giyahnani and others ).. Appellants Versus Kumar Bhatija and others ).. Respondents Mr. Charneet Chandrapal for the Appellants. Mr. V.V. Kanade for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Ms. Rajni Iyer a/w Mr. Rajendra Shah for Respondent Nos.6 to 8. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 9TH JUNE 2009. P.C.: We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties for some time. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants brings to the notice of the Court that he had taken out two Chamber Summons for amending of the Plaint. Those Chamber Summons are still pending before the learned Single Judge and depending upon the decision of the Chamber Summons, the Appellants would take out fresh Notice of Motion in accordance with law. 2 2. Without prejudice to their rights and contentions and objections that they are entitled to take, the Respondents have no objection to this course being adopted by the Appellants. 3. In view of the statement made, nothing survives in this Appeal at this stage inasmuch as we are unable to find any merit on the legal issue, with regard to non-claiming of the reliefs by the Appellants, as the factual position is true and correct. However, in order to avoid any prejudice being caused to the Appellants, the Notice of Motion, if filed, may be decided by the learned Single Judge without being in any way influenced by the observations made in the present order. 4. While disposing of this Appeal, we do express our concern over the language used in the grounds of Appeal and leave the matter at that. 5. Appeal accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.