1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 610 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 895 OF 2009 (Dr.) Vijay Shantaram Pradhan ...Plaintiff Vs. Anjali Anant Pradhan & Ors. ...Defendants Mr. Shekhar Jagtap, Advocate for Plaintiff Mr. Atul G. Damle, Advocate for Defendants 1 to 3 CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 11TH JUNE, 2010 P.C. : 1. The Suit has been filed on 5 th December 2008 and has been numbered in 2009. Earlier Notice of Motion was sought to be taken out. That Notice of of Motion has not been registered. This is the second Notice of Motion in the Suit. The Plaintiff has prayed for usual injunctions and appointment of Court Receiver in respect of a premises earlier tenanted to one Vilas Patankar and vacated by him pursuant to an order and judgment of this Court in RAE Suit No.136/312 of 1994 in which the Defendants herein have been granted a decree for recovery of possession on the ground of bonafide requirement. 2 2. The Plaintiff’s RAE No.121/244 of 1996 which came to be heard and disposed off under the same judgment has not resulted in a decree in favour of the Plaintiff. The issues in both the Suits have been framed and are a part of the judgment. The issues relating to the Defendants’ requirement in both the Suits are answered in affirmative in the Defendants’ Suit and in negative in Plaintiff’s Suit. 3. That decree has not been challenged. That decree has been executed. That has come to be final. 4. In this Notice of Motion the Plaintiff seeks to obtain orders directly against the judgment of the Rent Court. The reliefs cannot be granted. 5. Notice of Motion is dismissed. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)