IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 94 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 74 OF 2008 SHRI. SATISH A. DESSAI AND ANR., ... Applicants Versus SHRI. K. ABDULLA ... Respondent Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 15th July, 2008 P.C.:- Plaintiffs' Civil Suit has been rejected by Order dated 1-3-2008 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. An appeal filed therefrom has been admitted by Order of this Court dated 24-4-2008. Heard learned Counsel on behalf of both parties. On behalf of the Applicants/Plaintiffs, learned Counsel Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar has submitted at the outset that the Plaintiffs are not inclined to deposit the sum of Rs.11,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% from 27-5-1993 during the hearing and final disposal of the appeal. Learned Counsel further submits that in case the relief of injunction sought by the Plaintiffs, in the application under consideration is not granted the appeal itself would be rendered infructuous. That an appeal will be rendered infructuous is no ground by itself to obtain a stay of an order. Admittedly, there was an order passed against the Plaintiffs by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 20-12-2005 by which the Plaintiffs were required to pay to the Respondent the said sum of Rs.11,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 27-5-1993. The Plaintiffs challenged the said Order before the National Commission and the National Commission was pleased to reject the appeal. Against the said Order of the National Commission and in terms of Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 an appeal lies to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Plaintiffs did not pursue the matter further to the Apex Court and as a result of which and by virtue of Section 24 of the said Act the said order has attained finality. The Plaintiffs challenge the order of the State Commission by filing a Civil Suit and one of the main grounds which was urged by the Plaintiffs was that the Plaintiffs were not given opportunity to lead their evidence. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs has not been able to throw any light whether such a ground was urged before the National Commission or not. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Defendants submits that it was urged. Presently, there is no challenge to the order of National Commission which has now merged in the order of the State Commission and the challenge in the suit was only to the order of the State Commission on the ground that no sufficient opportunity was given to the Respondent to lead evidence. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division has come to the conclusion that the orders of the State Commission have attained finality and therefore the issue could not be re- agitated by way of a Civil Suit. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Plaintiffs submits that the plaint could not have been rejected in terms of Order 7, Rule 11(d) as barred by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in support thereof has placed reliance on the case of Hussein Miya Dosumiya v. Chandubhai Jethabhai and another(AIR 1954 Bombay 239). I have perused the said decision. Prima facie, it appears that filing of the suit was nothing but an attempt not to comply with the Orders of State Commission. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, where the orders passed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have attained finality, prima facie, in my view, the rejection of the plaint could not be faulted, for want of jurisdiction. I find there is no merit in this application and therefore the same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.