IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.349 OF 2006 Sharad Krishnaji Modak & Anr. ..... Appellants V/s. Arun Waman Apte (Deceased) through Legal Heirs .....Respondents Mr.Pesi Mody, Newyl Lashkari, Sunita Masani, Amit Jajoo, Gomes, i/by N.C.Dalal, for the appellants. Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni i/by T.D.Deshmukh, for the respondents. CORAM : SHRI P.B.MAJMUDAR & SHRI J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 26th NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. 1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing in the matter, this appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal today itself. 2. The appellants herein are the original plaintiffs of Special Civil Suit No.960 of 1997. The said suit is filed for specific performance of the suit agreement. The respondent who is the original defendant of the suit, has resisted the suit on various grounds. In the aforesaid suit, the defendant gave an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejecting the plaint on the ground that no cause of action has been disclosed in the plaint. The learned Trial Judge by the impugned order dated 03-07-1999 rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on the ground that cause of action is not disclosed in the plaint. It is the aforesaid order which is impugned at the instance of the original plaintiff in this appeal. 2. At the time of hearing of this appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the original defendant states that he has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and the suit is restored to the file. He further submitted that so far as the suit is concerned, there is no substance in the same and because of the pendency of the suit, the defendant is not in a position to deal with his property and therefore, it is requested that the suit may be expedited. 3. Since the learned counsel for the respondent/original defendant has given consent for setting aside the order impugned in this appeal, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Special Civil Suit No.960 of 1997 is restored to the file. However, considering the fact that the suit is filed in the year 1997 and the defendant is not in a position to deal with the property, it would be just and proper to direct the Trial Court to dispose of the aforesaid suit latest by 31-03-2009 without any further delay. The learned counsel for the appellants assured the Court that the plaintiff will cooperate for the early hearing of the suit and will not ask for any unnecessary adjournments in the suit. Considering the said fact, the Trial Court shall see to it that the suit is disposed of by the aforesaid date finally. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits and the trial court shall decide the suit after considering the evidence on record. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Writ to be sent to the Trail Court forthwith. 4. It is informed by both the counsel appearing in the matter that their respective clients and their respective Advocates shall remain present before the Trial Court on 08-12-2008 for direction in the matter. The Trial Judge thereafter, shall proceed with the matter. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary for the Trial Court to issue fresh summons to the parties in the suit. ( J.P.DEVADHAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )