:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1779 OF 2006 OF MOTION NO. 1779 OF 2006 OF MOTION NO. 1779 OF 2006 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 4608 OF 1998 NO. 4608 OF 1998 NO. 4608 OF 1998 Pushapraj K. Shetty & Ors. ... Plaintiffs. V/s. Hausila Prasad Pandey & Ors. ... Defendants. Mr. V.G. Mehta for the Plaintiffs. Mr. M.N. Pandey for the Defendants. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 20TH 20TH 20TH OCTOBER 2008. OCTOBER 2008. OCTOBER 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Heard Mr. Mehta, learned Advocate appearing for the Plaintiffs and Mr. Pandey, learned Advocate appearing for the Defendants. It is not disputed that Defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit premises. 2. This Court on 29th June 2000 in Notice of Motion 3238 of 1998 passed an order making that Motion absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), granting interim injunction and directing deposit of Rs.50,000/- which sum has been withdrawn by the Plaintiffs. 3. Thereafter, Notice of Motion No.1652 of 2002 was moved, which was dismissed on 5th March 2004. 4. The present Notice of Motion is seeking an order and direction to deposit a sum of Rs.2,77,045/- and it is :2: stated that the said is licence fees which must be deposited by the Defendants against whom a Suit is filed for possession. They are occupying the premises free of charge and that is how the Plaintiff is prejudiced. 5. In my view, the amount as claimed in prayer clause (a) of the present Notice of Motion is something which cannot be directed to be deposited unless it is held that the Defendants are trespassers and a decree can be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs for possession. Thereupon, usual directions for payment of mesne profits would follow. Today, when earlier two proceedings for identical relief have been disposed of, same relief cannot be granted in the third round. There are no changed circumstances pointed out. The Plaintiffs does not dispute that Defendant No.1 is in possession and is abiding by the order of this Court granting an interim injunction. 6. In such circumstances, the Notice of Motion is dismissed. 7. However, the Suit is pending from 1998 and therefore, it should be placed for framing of issues and further orders regarding recording of evidence. Place it for the same on 24th November 2008. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)