1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.41 OF 2009 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION ST. NO.3288 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.3301 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.3303 OF 2009 Mr. Chandrakant L. Thakkar ....Applicant. v. Mr. Sagarmal M. Shah ...Respondent. Mr. S.N.Chandrachud, adv. For the Applicant. Mr.R.D.Soni i/by M/s.Ram and Co., adv. For the Respondent. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : APRIL 16, 2010 P.C. 1 The learned counsel after some discussion at the bar makes a statement that the applicant, who is original plaintiff has already proceeded in the suit after it was remanded by the District Court by the impugned order, therefore, revision application does not survive. He also points out that after the matter was remanded, the defendant/respondent had tried to play fraud by filing a pursis that the plaintiff did not want to pursue the suit and also by filing application for restitution of the property. In respect of that, prayer clause (e) was made in the revision application. He makes a statement that plaintiff has already moved the 2 trial Court for that relief. Mr. Soni the learned counsel for the respondents denies allegation. In view of these circumstances, application for condonation of delay has become infructuous and stands disposed off accordingly. As a result Civil Revision Application St. No. 3288/09, Civil Application St. No.3301/09, Civil Application St. No. 3303/09 stand disposed off accordingly. Plaintiff/applicant shall have the liberty to pursue before the trial Court for remedy in respect of his prayer clause (e) in the Revision Application. The trial Court shall first hear the plaintiff in respect of the alleged fraud about the withdrawal of the suit before deciding the application made by the defendant for the restitution of the property. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)