* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 493 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 256 OF 2007 IN S.C.SUIT NO. 4109 OF 1980 Anil Gulabdas Shah and Ors. .......Appellants Verus Ashram Tiwari (since deceased through legal heirs) Mrs.Kalavati Ashram Tiwari & Ors. ........Respondents ------------ Shri.Anil G.Shah, petitioner in person. Shri.Prateek Saksaria with Shri.Abhishek Sawant i/by.Wadia Ghandy & Co. adv.for respondents. Coram: Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 4 th August, 2008. P.C. : 1. This Appeal is to challenge the order dated 23rd January, 2008 passed on the Notice of Motion taken out by the appellant before the City Civil and Sessions Court at Bombay. The impugned order is common to the four Noticeses of Motions taken out by the appellant who appears in person. * 2 * The present appeal concerns Notice of Motion No. 256 of 2007. By this Notice of Motion, the appellant sought three interim reliefs. The first relief was for recalling of the order 6th October, 2007 imposing costs of Rs.5,000/- for an adjournment granted to the appellant. The second relief sought in the Notice of Motion is stay of the proceedings and the third relief is of compensation of Rs.25,000/- to be awarded to the appellant on the ground that the order dated 6th October,2007 had been dishonestly obtained by the defendants. 2. The Notice of Motion has been dismissed by the trial court with an observation that the same is totally mischievous and misconceived. Unfortunately, the trial court has not given reasons for the observation. 3. On 6th October, 2007 the appellant had presented an application for an adjournment on the ground that he was to require to go to Delhi to attend one Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court arising out of the same proceedings. The appellant contends that the respondents who were represented before the court by lawyers, ought to have informed the court that the Apex Court has stayed the hearing of the suit. If the respondents were to inform the court that hearing of the suit is stayed, * 3 * the court would not have imposed costs to the extent of Rs.5,000/- against the appellant for seeking an adjournment. This is because, the court would have been obliged to adjourn the matter, until the stay of the Supreme Court is vacated. 4. Whatever the challenge of the appellant to the order dated 6th October, 2007, he could not have taken it up by taking out a Notice of Motion for recalling of the order, since the same is not provided for under the Civil Procedure Code. The only way in which the appellant probably could have taken exception to the order before the same court was by filing an application for review of the order. However, the appellant has not resorted to that remedy. Otherwise, it was necessary for the appellant to file appropriate application before the higher court and to challenge the order. Therefore, the observation of the trial court that the Notice of Motion is misconceived, is correct. The Notice of Motion for the reliefs at prayer (a) and the consequential prayer at (c) was not maintainable. However, it is repeatedly held that the trial court ought to have given reasons for the observation that the same is an misconceived application. * 4 * 5. As regards the second prayer, it may be noted here that the trial court has already stayed the hearing of the proceedings by the common order. Therefore, no comment need be made on that part. In the circumstances, the Appeal from Order is hereby dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs. [Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J]