1 caw-1829-11 in wp-2280-11.doc mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1829 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2280 of 2011 Haresh Mansukhani & Anr. .. Applicant Versus Hemant Mansukhani & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Kamal C. Saigal CA of Harpreet Mansukhani Applicant in person present in Court Mr. P. S. Dani i/b Ashoka Law Firm for Respondent CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 15th NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. : 1 The above Writ Petition has been filed impugning the order dated 10-3-2011 passed on Exhibit 54 in S.C.Suit No.99 of 2007 by the Learned Judge of the City Civil Court at Dindoshi, by which order, the Application Exhibit-54 for deleting prayer clause (a) from the plaint came to be rejected. The said Application was rejected on the ground that the earlier motion taken out by the Petitioners being Notice of Motion No.2058 of 2010 for identical relief has been rejected by an order dated 5-2-2011. The above Civil Application has been filed in view of the issue 2 caw-1829-11 in wp-2280-11.doc which has been sought to be raised by the Petitioners in the above Petition as regards whether the Respondent No.2 can be represented by her Constituted Attorney, and make oral submissions on her behalf before this Court. 2 The Constituted Attorney of the Respondent No.2 Shri. Kamal C. Saigal, today tender his own affidavit dated 11-11-2011. In the context of the relief sought in the Petition as well as in the Civil Application, paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the said Affidavit are relevant and are reproduced herein under: “3. I state that in order to cut short the litigation, avoid multiplicity of litigation and save the precious and valuable time of the Honourable Court, I hereby have no objection that the Petition of the Petitioner be allowed to the extent that the order of the Honourable City Court, Dindoshi , dated 10-3-2011 be quashed and set aside and Petitioners be allowed to delete the prayer clause (a) in the plaint in their suit within two weeks from today. That since the suit is of the year 2007 and that Petitioners are senior Citizens the Trial of suit be expedited and be disposed off by the Honourable trial Court within time bound period of three months or as directed by this Honourable Court. 4 I state that the present affidavit is filed without admitting the contents of the petition and the reply of the Petitioners to the Respondent No.1, Civil Application and without going into the merits of the matter. The Respondent No.2, and her constituted attorney reserve their right to agitate the dispute and issue of eligibility of the Constituted Attorney before the trial Court in accordance with law at appropriate stage. 3 caw-1829-11 in wp-2280-11.doc 5 I state that the eligibility issue of the constituted attorney to represent and defend the Respondent No.2, be left open to be looked into by the trial court at appropriate stage in accordance with law and that the Civil Application be also disposed off along with the Petition in terms of what is stated herein.” The said Affidavit filed by the Constituted Attorney of the Respondent No.2 is taken on record. 3 In view of the statement made in paragraph 3 as stated above, the above Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10-3-2011 is quashed and set aside and prayer clause (a) is allowed to be deleted, the Petitioners to carry out the amendment in the plaint of deleting the prayer clause (a) in terms of the present order. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. 4 In so far as, the above Civil Application is concerned, by which, the Constituted Attorney seeks a right to represent the Respondent No.2 and make oral submissions on behalf of the Respondent No.2. In view of what has been stated in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the said Affidavit as extracted above, the Civil Application would not survive and the Constituted Attorney would be entitled to agitate before the trial Court the issue of his entitlement to represent the Respondent No.2 and make oral submissions on behalf of the Respondent No.2. If any application is made by the Respondent No.2 to that effect, the same would be considered by the Trial 4 caw-1829-11 in wp-2280-11.doc Court on its own merits and in accordance with law. 6 With the aforesaid observations the Civil Application to also stand disposed of. 7 The parties are ad-idem that the suit considering the dispute that is involved be expedited. The hearing of the suit is accordingly expedited and the Learned Judge of the City Civil Court at Dindoshi, is directed to dispose of the same by 30-11-2012. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)