IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6900 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 6900 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 6900 OF 2007 IN IN IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 158 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 158 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 158 OF 2007 IN IN IN B.C.C.C.S.C.SUIT NO. 5425 OF 2006 B.C.C.C.S.C.SUIT NO. 5425 OF 2006 B.C.C.C.S.C.SUIT NO. 5425 OF 2006 Kantilal Karunashankar Bhatt & Ors. ...Petitioners (Orig.Defendants) V/s. Kunal V. Chotalia ...Respondent (Orig.Plaintiff) Mr.Girishkumar V. Pandye for the Petitioners. Mr.Ketan Chotani for the Respondent. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 4, 2008 DATED : FEBRUARY 4, 2008 DATED : FEBRUARY 4, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. The respondent has vehemently taken objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. It is submitted that the impugned order was passed by the trial Court on 15th & 19th June, 2007. He submitted that this order was challenged by the present petitioner while filing AO in his suit being AO No.652/2007. It is submitted that AO was dismissed on merits by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : S.R. Sathe, J.) by - 2 - judgment and order dated 31st August, 2007. He submitted that after the AO was dismissed, the present writ petition has been filed on 10th September, 2007. He submitted that since the AO was dismissed on merits, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the impugned order again by filing a separate writ petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the AO was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 6 subclause 3. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, admittedly, has not raised this ground in his petition regarding the non-maintainability of the AO. The fact remains that the AO has been dismissed on merits and therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to file a writ petition challenging the order passed by the trial court again by filing a separate writ petition. The objection raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The only remedy which is available to the petitioner is to challenge the order which is passed by the learned Single Judge of this - 3 - Court by filing a SLP in the Apex Court. Hence, in my view, the petitioner cannot be permitted to again challenge the impugned order for the second time by filing a writ petition in this Court. 5. Writ petition, therefore, is dismissed. (V.M. Kanade, J.) (V.M. Kanade, J.) (V.M. Kanade, J.)