1 caw2581.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2581 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8183 OF 2003 Aditya Mills Ltd. ...Applicant vs. Asha Gulab Hira ...Respondent Ms Sushma Singh for the applicant Ms Chandana Salgaonkar for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 18, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent. The prayer is for recalling the Judgment and order dated 16 th September 2010 by which the writ petition filed by the respondent has been finally disposed of. The respondent is the original plaintiff landlady who filed a suit on the ground of bona fide requirement. By Judgment and order dated 16 th September 2010, this Court has set aside the Judgments and decrees passed in the suit filed by the respondent and has remanded the suit to the trial Court to enable the parties to lead further evidence. 2 The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Judgment and order of this Court is exparte and the applicant was not informed that the writ petition was on final hearing board at serial number 250. It is stated that the concerned Advocate missed the matter on board. The learned counsel submitted that the order of remand is unjust in as much as the respondent cannot be permitted 2 caw2581.sxw to adduce evidence as regards the facts and circumstances which were suppressed by her. 3 I have considered the submissions. Perusal of the farad sheet shows that the on 15 th September 2010, the writ petition was called out for final hearing when none appeared for the respondent (present applicant in this application). When the petition was decided on the next day, none appeared for the respondent. Writ petition was expedited on the ground that the present age of the respondent who has filed the suit on the ground of bona fide requirement was more than 90 years. The suit filed by the respondent is of the year 1986 seeking possession of a residential premises on the ground of bona fide need. It must be stated here that in the suit filed by the respondent, the trial Court had passed a decree for possession on the ground of bona fide need which is upset by the Appellate Court. By Judgment of this Court both the decrees of the Courts below have been set aside and the suit has been remanded to the trial Court with liberty to the respondent to lead further evidence. This Court has granted an opportunity to the applicant to adduce further evidence. Thus, it will be open for the applicant to lead evidence in rebuttal. If some facts were suppressed by the respondent-plaintiff, the applicant can always point out the said aspect to the trial Court. The effect of suppression of the facts can always be considered by the trial Court as the possession is sought by the respondent on the ground of bona fide requirement. Considering the nature of the order passed in the writ petition, it is not necessary to recall the said Judgement and Order as there is no prejudice caused to the applicant by the said Judgment and order. 4 Subject to what is observed above, civil application 3 caw2581.sxw is rejected. . On the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant it is directed that the operation of the order dated 16 th September 2010 is stated for a period of four weeks from today. JUDGE