1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L) NO.335 OF 2008 Kailas Prasad Agarwal ... Appellant Vs Atul Dhirajlal Sohni and others .. Respondents Mr. D.S. Chandnani i/by M/s. Lexim Associates for the appellant. Mr. Anuj Narula i/by M/s. Jhangiani Narula & Associates for the respondent No.2. Mr. K.L. Vyas, Court Receiver present. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J., & V.M. KANADE , J. DATE : 2ND JULY , 2008 P.C.: We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25th June, 2008 in Notice of Motion No.2210 of 2008 in Suit No.3221 of 1984. The learned Single Judge noticed that there was no stay in operation till 10th June, 2008 and 2 furthermore, the application lacks bonafides. Exercising its discretion, the court declined to grant prayer in the notice of motion and the same was dismissed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the earlier orders were obtained by misrepresentation and all subsequent orders should be set aside and protection should be given in relation to the property in dispute. Against that order, the appellant has filed the present appeal being Appeal (Lodging) No.335 of 2008. This appeal was mentioned before this court on 30th June, 2008 and it was kept for today. In the meanwhile, the counsel appearing for the appellant-applicant has also submitted draft notice of motion, which is taken on record. This notice of motion be numbered in accordance with the rules. 3. We must notice that this case has a prolonged history. The parties have been litigating for a considerable time. Even earlier, the learned Single Judge had passed an order dated 17th August, 2007 declining any relief to the appellant. The appellant has preferred Appeal (Lodging) No.729 of 2007 against the same order which was 3 subsequently numbered as Appeal No.191 of 2008. The said appeal was dismissed by a detailed order of the Division Bench of this court dated 29th September, 2007. Review Petition No.1 of 2008 was filed by the appellant for reviewing the order dated 29th September, 2007 which also came to be dismissed by the same Division Bench vide its order dated 29th February, 2008. None of these two orders were challenged by the appellant before the court of competent jurisdiction. After waiting for considerable time, the appellant again took out notice of motion before the learned Single Judge which came to be dismissed as noticed above. We also noticed that parties earlier had contested the claim and rights of each other and the matter even went upto the Supreme Court. The Special Leave Petitions preferred by the present appellant on two different occasions were dismissed by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 30th September, 1999 and 2nd September, 2005. 4. The conduct of the applicant is such that it calls for no interference by this court. In any case, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is in exercise of judicial discretion which is 4 neither perverse nor suffers from any illegality. Dismissed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant makes an oral application for grant of interim order as he wishes to challenge this order before the Supreme Court. The learned Single Judge has declined to grant any interim order. So we granted none when the appeal came up for hearing on the earlier occasion. There is no interim order in force right from 10th June, 2008. We see no reason to grant any interim protection. Request is declined. CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J.