: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.825 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1609 OF 2009 Gerard D’Mello, Proprietor, Rebbaca Enterprises, Mumbai .. Applicants V/s. Nazir Ahmed Zia & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Vasant Dhawan for the Applicants. Mr. C.K. Tripathi for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. Vinod Mahadik for Respondent-BMC. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 30 TH APRIL, 2010. P.C.: 1. The present Civil Application has been filed for cancellation of the warrants issued against the applicant on 26th February, 2010. The Court, on 18th January, 2010, had vacated the ad-interim relief which was granted to the appellants i.e. the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the present Civil Application. This was because the respondent Nos.1 to 4 had not served the Builder despite Hamdast being granted by the Court on 8th January, 2010. An affidavit of service was then filed on 18th January, 2010 by respondent Nos.1 to 4, which was sworn on : 2 : 11th December, 2009, which indicated that the Builder had been served by them by private service. The Court, therefore, issued a bailable warrant to the applicant herein, i.e. respondent No.3 in the First Appeal, and made it returnable on 26th February, 2010. 2. On 26th February, 2010, again the applicant was not present in Court, nor had an affidavit been filed by him and, therefore, a non-bailable warrant for his arrest was issued by the Court and made returnable on 16th April, 2010. On 5th March, 2010, the non-bailable warrant was not cancelled but was stayed till 16th April, 2010 on condition that respondent No.3, i.e. the applicant herein, should remain present in Court. 3. Accordingly, today the applicant is present in Court. He tenders an apology through his Advocate and submits that the warrants issued against him be cancelled. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.7 in the present Civil Application, i.e. : 3 : respondent No.4 in the First Appeal, points out that the applicant has been recalcitrant and had, in fact, been served on 5th December, 2009, despite which he chose to disobey the orders of the Court. 5. It is true that the applicant has flouted the orders of the Court and, therefore, the bailable and non-bailable warrants were issued against him. Once the notice is issued by the Court to a party, the noticee is expected to comply with the orders of the Court. The conduct of the applicant is undisputedly condemnable. However, the applicant has tendered an apology. Therefore, the Civil Application is allowed, with a warning to the applicant to refrain from such conduct in the future. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). 7. The applicant shall be present in Court on the next date of hearing.