1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 369/2010. Dattatraya Govindrao Wandre -: versus :- M/s. Amanraj Bevrages Pvt. Ltd. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JUNE 07, 2010. Heard Shri Atul Pande, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Dhoble, learned counsel for respondent. Landlord has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the order passed below Exh.11 in M.C.A.No. 659/2009. M.C.A.No. 659/2009 is filed by the present respondent challenging the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 20.10.2005 delivered by the Small Cause Court in Civil Suit No. 3/2005. There is delay of about three years. The contention of present respondent is that Civil Suit was filed against a non existing Company. Shri Pande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners- landlord has pointed out that the contention is false and Himani Group had already challenged the ex-parte judgment and decree in appeal before the District Court, and thereafter in Writ Petition before this Court. Shri Dhoble, learned counsel is disputing this 2 position. He states that, as the suit was filed against a non existing person and decree has been obtained in collusion, fraudulently, the present respondent has filed M.C.A.No. 659/2009. He further states that as Himani group of companies was a party in Civil Suit No.30/2005, only to avoid any technical objection in prosecuting M.C.A. leave has been sought to join that company as party and it has been rightly granted. In view of the facts mentioned above, and prayers made in Writ Petition, it is apparent that the M.C.A. which is filed by the present respondent before the District Judge-3 at Nagpur needs to be considered further. The prayer for condonation of delay needs to be looked into by that Court and at that time the contentions of Shri Pande, learned counsel about the bonafides of present respondent in filing the appeal or in filing such application can be gone into. Though Shri Pande and Shri Dhoble, learned counsel appearing for respective parties want to address this court on merits, I find that at this stage merits of the issue cannot be gone into in the present Writ Petition. The said aspect needs to be gone into by the District Judge-3, Nagpur while considering the M.C.A.as moved by the present respondent. Only to show bonafides of respondent and without prejudice to any contentions and defence in the matter, the respondent is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/- more with the trial Court. The said amount shall not be allowed to be withdrawn by the present petitioners. Shri Dhoble, learned counsel points out that monetary part of the decree is already taken care of by the respondent. The amount directed to be deposited, will not 3 prejudice the defence of either parties. As M/s. Hemani Group of company was already defendant in Civil Suit No.30/2005, it is apparent that in appeal sought to be filed against that ex-parte judgment and decree by the present respondent, M/s. Hemani Group of companies is necessary party and I, therefore, do not find any thing wrong with the order passed by the District Judge-3, Nagpur in the matter below Exh.11. However, the proceedings in M.C.A.No. 659/2009 are expedited and the said Court shall dispose of the said M.C.A. as early as possible and in any case by 15.08.2010. The respondent shall deposit the amount of Rs.50,000/- as mentioned above by 31.07.2010. All contentions of parties in the matter are kept open and the respondent who has filed the proceedings before the District Judge-3 at Nagpur shall not take any adjournment and shall not delay the said adjudication of the matter on the ground that M/s. Hemani group of company is not being served. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.