1 rpal47-10 agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.47 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2494 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (L) NO.339 OF 2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.395 OF 2004 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.267 OF 2003 IN SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.1266 OF 2001 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.1089 OF 1999 Mr.Rohit M. Sanghvi ..Petitioner. Versus Dr.P.C. Gandhi & Another ..Respondents. Mr.R.M. Sanghvi, Petitioner in person present. Mrs.Jyoti P. Gandhi, respondent No.2 in person present. Son of respondent No.1 present. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & R.M. Savant, JJ. DATE : 21st December, 2010. P.C. : 1. This Review Petition is placed before us pursuant to the 2 rpal47-10 directions given by the learned Chief Justice. The grievance of the review petitioner, who appears in person, is that, a Division Bench of this Court by two orders dated 13th October 2008 and 18th November 2008 has referred all the disputes between the parties herein to be decided by the mediation center under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner submits that since there are not only civil disputes but also criminal proceedings pending between the parties, it will be impossible to resolve the said disputes through the mechanism of mediation. He submits that the orders dated 13th October 2008 and 18th November 2008 are not consent orders and since he is not agreeable for mediation, the impugned orders be recalled. 2. The respondent No.1 is presently in Nashik Jail undergoing simple imprisonment pursuant to conviction order passed in some other criminal proceedings. The respondent No.1 is duly served with the notice of hearing of this Review Petition through the Jailor, Nashik Central Jail. In the said notice, it was specifically stated that the Respondent No.1 should make it convenient to appear either himself or through his representative at the hearing of the Review Petition. 3. On 13th December 2010, when the Review Petition was taken up for admission, the respondent No.2 appeared in person and sought adjournment on the ground that the respondent No.1 is in jail and cannot attend Court unless warrant to remain present in Court is issued. We made it 3 rpal47-10 clear that it is for the respondent No.1 to make his own arrangements either to appear in person or through a representative. However, at the request of respondent No.2, the hearing of this Review Petition was adjourned to 21st December 2010. 4. Today, when the Review Petition was taken up in the morning session, a letter addressed by the respondent No.1 was produced by the son of respondent No.1, who is present in Court, wherein the respondent No.1 has again sought adjournment till the end of April 2011, so that the respondent No.1 can appear in person after undergoing the imprisonment. When the adjournment was refused, the respondent No.2 sought time till 3.00 p.m., so that she can get ready with the matter. 5. Accordingly, the matter was kept back till 3.00 p.m. and taken up for hearing at 3.00 p.m. Both the parties were heard at length. The respondent No.2 submitted that the impugned orders were passed by consent of all the parties. She submitted that in view of various litigations pending between the parties, it is just and proper that the disputes should be resolved through mediation and, therefore, the impugned orders should not be recalled. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. Parties to the dispute can be relegated to the mediation center only if both parties are agreeable. If any one party is not willing, then the mediation would not be possible. In 4 rpal47-10 the present case, the petitioner who appears in person emphatically states that he has not consented for mediation. Perusal of the impugned orders do not show that the said orders were passed by consent. The petitioner has moved the Court for modification immediately after the passing of the above orders. Both the parties are adamant and are fighting on every issue. 7. In these circumstances, in the facts of the present case, in our opinion, the proper course is to leave the parties to get the disputes resolved through the normal judicial process, especially when there are criminal proceedings pending between the parties. Accordingly, the orders dated 13th October 2008 and 18th November 2008 are recalled. Notice of Motion No. 2494 of 2008 in Appeal (L) No.339 of 2008 in Chamber Summons No.395 of 2004 & Chamber Summons No.1195 of 2004 in Execution Application No. 267 of 2003 in Summons for Judgment No.1266 of 2001 in Summary Suit No.1089 of 1999 is restored to the file. Same be placed before the regular Court. 8. At this stage, the respondent No.2 seeks stay of the operation of the order. In our opinion, no case is made out for grant of stay. Application is rejected. 9. The Review Petition is disposed off in terms of this order. No costs. (R.M. Savant, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)