[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.47 OF 2009 IN F.A.NO. 2667 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLN.NO.50 OF 2009 IN LPA NO.47 OF 2009 IN F.A.NO.2667 OF 2007 Mr.Arvind Anant Halbe ..Appellant Vs. Lilavti Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust & Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.A.A.Halbe Appellant in person Mr.I.M.Chagala, Senior Advocate with Mr.P.K. Samdhani, Senior Advocate and Sanjay Jain i/b Wadia Ghandi & Co. for Respondent No.1 Mr.Prateek Sakseria i/b Daru Shah and Co. for Respondent No.3 Mr.C.S.Balsara with H.N.Thakore i/b Thakore Zariwalla & Associates for Respondent No.2 Mr.Shane Sapeco i/b Hariani & Co. for Respondent Nos. 11 to 13 Mr.J.D.Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate with Thomas T.K. i/b Paras Kuhad and Associates for Respondent Nos. 15 to 17 .... CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : MARCH 6, 2009 DATE : MARCH 6, 2009 DATE : MARCH 6, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Mr.Halbe states that in view of the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the group of Appeals and Cross-objections i.e. F.A.No.2667 [-2-] of 2007 with Cross Objection No.584 of 2008, with F.A.Nos.2670 & 2672 of 2007 which have been disposed of the learned Single Judge on 27.2.2009 specifically holding that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suits, the group of appeals preferred before the High Court against the judgment of the City Civil Court which had no jurisdiction, is non-est as a corollary of the same, all interim orders passed in the matter would be non-est, and submits that as the learned Single Judge could not have entertained these appeals, any interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge would also be non-est. 2. If we accept this proposition, the logical conclusion would be that the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by Mr.A.A.Halbe is non-est and it should not be entertained by this Court. 3. Mr.Halbe submits that this Court may dispose of this Appeal by observing that it is not maintainable as interim order is non-est. 4. We beg to differ with the proposition that an appeal was not maintainable impugning judgment and [-3-] order passed by the City Civil Court in the matter. The appellate Court having come to the conclusion that City Civil Court had no jurisdiction, the judgment and decree of the City Civil Court is set aside for want of jurisdiction and the parties are directed to approach the Charity Commissioner as observed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the appeals vide order dated 27.2.2009. Therefore, nothing survives in the matter. Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the Joint Administrator, is therefore, disposed of as infructous. 5. Civil Application is disposed of as infructous. [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [J.N.PATEL, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]