1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION jmi CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3292 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.226 OF 1999. Shri Harivilas Madhavprasad Ruia &Anr. ..Applicants. v/s. Castrol India Limited & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Harvilas M. Ruia-in-person, Appellant. Mr. Mihir B, Kamdar, i/b. M/s. Udwadia & Udeshi, for Respondent No.1. Mr. Harshad Parekh, for Respondent Nos. 2 &3. .... CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 6TH NOVEMBER 2009. P.C. This civil application is taken out by the applicant for setting aside of the order dated 29 th January 1999 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai, dismissing the civil suit no.6595 of 1992, which was filed by the applicant. The applicant is also seeking setting aside of the order passed by this Court dated 29 th March 2001 dismissing the applicant’s appeal no. 226 of 1999, which was preferred by the applicant against the said order dated 29 th January 1999 of the City 2 Civil Court. The applicant is further seeking setting aside of the orders dated 28 th January 2004, 21 st May 2008 and 17 th September 2008 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 16 th Court, Mumbai and the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai, rejecting certain applications filed by the applicant. The applicant has also prayed that the civil suit no.6595 of 1992, which was dismissed on 29 th January 1999 and from which the appeal was also dismissed by an order of this Court dated 29 th March 2001, be remanded back to the City Civil Court, Mumbai. The present civil application is therefore, taken out in appeal which was dismissed by this Court more than eight years back. 2. The applicant had in the year 1992 filed a suit before the City Civil Court, Mumbai, against respondent nos.2 and 3 (defendants therein) for declaration and injuction pertaining to certain shares of respondent no.1 i.e. M/s. Castrol India Limited. By a judgment and order dated 29 th January 1999 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai, the said suit was dismissed and the appeal therefrom was also dismissed by an order of this Court dated 29 th March 2001. 3 Whilst dismissing the said appeal, this Court has recorded that the basic thing i.e. lacking in the plaint is that apart from the suit being based on an oral transaction, the plaintiffs have nowhere stated for how much consideration they had agreed to sell the shares or what was the consideration they had received from the respondent nos. 2 and 3. It is further recorded that there is also no explaination as to why without receiving any consideration, the shares were handed over for transfer. It was observed that these issues go to the root of the matter and in the absence of the pleadings and explanations in that regard, the City Civil Court, Mumbai after considering the evidence of the parties, have given specific finding in the suit and found that there are no merits in their suit. This Court also recorded that the appellants may as directed by the Trial Court, file a suit for accounts. 3. Thereafter, the appellants have not filed any suit for accounts. The applicants filed criminal proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 16 th Court, Mumbai, against respondent nos. 2 and 3 and have failed to obtain any favourable orders. The 4 respondent no.3 herein was discharged by an order dated 28 th January 2004 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 16 th Court, Mumbai. The application made by the applicants for recalling of the said order, was rejected by an order dated 21 st May 2008. The revision application preferred therefrom by the appellant before the Sessions Court, Mumbai, is also rejected by an order dated 17 th September 2008. The applicant has therefore, taken out the present civil application for the aforestated reliefs which in view of the aforestated facts is totally mis-conceived and untenable. 4. The civil application is therefore dismissed. The applicants to pay costs of this application to the respondents. [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]