1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.114 OF 2010 Capt. Arun Sethi .... Appellant Vs. Ahtesham S. Sayed & Ors. .... Respondents Appellant in person. Shri P.G. Lad for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JUNE 28, 2010 P.C: 1. The appellant in person has taken exception to the order passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai, Shri A.L. Pansare, on 30-7-2009 whereby he reviewed the earlier order by recalling the order dated 16-12-2008 and observing that the protection granted under the order dated 16-12-2008 stood withdrawn. 2. The appellant is the son of a tenant of the premises in respect of which the landlord has filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of 3 rooms 2 on the 3rd floor from the tenant. The appellant seems to have some discord with his mother who is the tenant and apprehends that his mother and the landlord would enter into some sort of compromise and make his claim in respect of the premises which are the subject matter of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act redundant. He had therefore approached the City Civil Court by claiming to join himself as party to the suit by taking out a chamber summons. This application was disposed of by learned Judge Shri Davare by order dated 12-2-2008. By this order the applicant was held to be entitled to protection even after withdrawal of the suit. Thereafter the appellant applied vide Exhibit-7 and this application was disposed of by Judge Shri Pansare by order dated 16-12-2008 whereby he observed that in his view the protection granted under the order dated 12-2-2008 would prevail even after withdrawal of the suit or settlement, if any, arrived at. 3. The order dated 12-2-2008 passed by learned Judge Shri Davare was questioned before this Court and the said Writ Petition No.5070 of 2008 was dismissed by judgment dated 2-12-2008. Thereafer, the landlord preferred a 3 review and this review came to be allowed by an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 8-7-2009. Thereafter the landlord filed applications for review before learned Judge Shri Pansare in the City Civil Court for review of his order dated 16-12-2008, in view of the review allowed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court by order dated 8-7-2009 recalling the earlier order questioning the judgment of learned Judge Shri Davare on chamber summons delivered on 12-2-2008, and deleting the observations in the order dated 12-2-2008 as regards the protection afforded to the appellant. While allowing the review application, learned Judge Shri Pansare held that the protection granted under the order dated 16-12-2008 stood withdrawn and disposed of the review applications. 4. I have heard the appellant in person as well as Advocate Shri P.G. Lad for respondent Nos.1 to 3, who was kind enough to enlighten me on factual aspects as well as the legal aspects, as the appellant has chosen not to avail of legal assistance. 5. There should be no occasion for review of an order on the ground that in a collateral 4 proceedings the High Court passes some orders. Otherwise there will be no end to review of orders by various Courts since the fortunes of parties may go on changing, as the lis arising out of collateral proceedings makes progress. If the learned Judge of the City Civil Court felt that he was required to review his order because of judgment in review petition by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court, the learned Judge be required to again review his orders should L.P.A., which is stated to have been taken out against the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, alters the fortunes of the parties. 6. Therefore, it was not necessary and not permissible for the learned Judge to review the order simply because the High Court happened to take some view in another proceedings. In any case, it was not necessary for him to reiterate as to what the High Court had already held. Whatever the High Court observes in whatever jurisdiction is binding on the parties and therefore it was not necessary for the learned Judge to say that his order dated 16-12-2008 stood modified because of the Judgment of the High Court, as the High Court judgment would operate irrespective of what the 5 learned Judge of the City Civil Court may feel. Therefore, the exercise undertaken by the learned Judge was not necessary. If the fortunes of the appellant again change because of orders in his L.P.A., the Courts would obviously take note of whatever happens. It is hoped that the parties would not again bother Courts by filing such review applications. In view of this, with the above observations, namely, that it was not necessary for the learned Judge of the City Civil Court to state that the judgment of this Court in review petition No.52 of 2009 delivered on 8-7-2009 bound the parties, this appeal is disposed of. 7. At this stage, the party in person also refers to the observations in the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1186 of 2008 dated 7-3-2008. Needless to mention that all orders and judgments passed by this Court do bind the parties. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)