1 479.11 SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.479 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.168 OF 2008 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.480 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.167 OF 2008 Jayesh D.Jhaveri (HUF) ...Petitioner Versus Khusman CHS Ltd. ...Respondent ...... Mr.Kishor Patil i/b Mr.S.Redij for Petitioner in support of Notice of Motion. None for Respondent. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATED:- DECEMBER 2, 2011. P.C. 1. Both these Motions have been filed in disposed of Writ Petitions. By these Motions, the petitioner prays for leave to challenge the Judgment and Award dated 8th August, 2006 passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai passed in Appeal No.78/2006 and Appeal No. 79/2006. This relief is prayed in the context of the order passed by me on 7th February, 2008 while dismissing the two Writ Petitions filed by the petitioner bearing Writ Petition (OS) No.167/2008 and Writ Petition (AS) No.9387/2007. 2 479.11 2. By the said Writ Petitions, the petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Appellate Court dated 8th August, 2006 in Appeal No.78/2006 and Appeal No.79/2006. Against the said decision of the Appellate Court, the petitioner had also filed Review Petition before the Appellate Court itself, which came to be rejeted. Against the decision in the Review Petition, the petitioner had filed two Writ Petitions in this Court bearing Writ Petition Nos.6863/2007 and 6857/2007 which were dismissed on 18th October, 2007. Therefore, preliminary objection was taken by the Counsel for the respondent Society about the maintainability of the subsequently filed Writ Petitions against the order of the Appellate Court in Appeals in absence of the leave of the concerned Court. In addition, the Court, in order dated 7th February, 2009, opined that the petitioner could not be permitted to urge the two specific grounds raised in the Review Petitions, which contention finally stood rejected on account of dismissal of Writ Petition Nos.6863/2007 and 6857/2007 respectively. In my order dated 7th February, 2008, it is then observed that the petitioner could have raised some other ground in the Review Petition, but having failed to do so in the Review Petition; and also did not pursue it in Writ Petition Nos. 6863/2007 and 6857/2007, in the subsequently filed Writ Petitions those 3 479.11 grounds also cannot be urged. In other words, the subsequently filed Petitions were dismissed on this additional ground and not simplicitor because the petitioner did not obtain leave of the High Court which has decided Writ Petition to challenge the order passed in Appeal. Moreover, the leave to challenge the decision of the Appellate Court ought to have been prayed in the previously filed Writ Petitions against the decision on Review Petitions. 3. As regards the other reason which is recorded, there is no prayer for review of the said finding. Assuming that this Application may be treated as Review Application, because of the expansive relief claimed in prayer clause (c), it is doubtful that the petitioner can be permitted to ask for review of the said reason. Be that as it may, the question of granting any relief in the present Motions does not arise. The same are disposed of. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.