( 1 ) ca18376.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18376 OF 2010 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 126 OF 2009 Syed Fassi Pasha s/o. Syed Fakir Pasha & Ors... Applicants Versus Syed Shah Salauddin s/o. Yusufoddin Quadri .. Respondents Inamdar & Anr. Shri S.S. Kazi, Advocate for the applicants. Shri R.T. Rathod, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri M.B.W. Khan, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATED : 25.03.2011 P.C. :- 1. This is an application tendered by the applicants/ original defendants for recalling the order passed in Civil Revision Application No. 126 of 2009, on account of breach of terms and conditions imposed while granting injunction in favour of the respondents herein/petitioners in the Civil ( 2 ) ca18376.10 Revision Application. This Court while allowing the application seeking injunction and while dealing with Civil Revision Application No. 126 of 2009, restrained the defendants/applicants herein from causing disturbance in possession of the original plaintiffs/respondents herein till the disposal of the proceedings before the learned Presiding Officer. The condition in respect of deposit of amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) within two months from the passing of the order was imposed, which according to the respondent has been complied with. The applicants/original defendants allege non-observance of the terms stated in the order in respect of deposit of amount towards sugarcane yield received by the revision petitioners/respondents herein. 2. The orders passed by this Court in Civil Revision Application No. 126 of 2009 was challenged in the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition Nos. 24790 - 24791 of 2010, which came to be rejected by the Apex Court on 20th August, 2010. The applicants herein also preferred a review application bearing No. 52 of 2010 requesting the Court to recall order in respect of grant of injunction. However, the ( 3 ) ca18376.10 review application also came to be rejected by this Court in view of the order passed on 05.04.2010. While dismissing the review application, the Court observed in para 3 and 4 of the order as under :- “3) Mr. Kazi submits that the observations of this Court about the supply of sugarcane made the defendants to cause search and in February, 2010, they have collected certain receipts of depositing sugarcane to the factory drawn from the field in question and hence, the order, according to him, needs review. 4) During the course of the submissions, Mr. Kazi accepts, clamping the injunction was not alone on receipt of possession of the sugarcane, but this court considered the payment of revenue, the development at site and other 3 factors.” 3. This is an another attempt by unsuccessful defendants/applicants herein claiming recall of the order passed by this Court. 4. It is contention of the applicants/original defendants that the respondents herein/original plaintiffs have not deposited the yield received by them towards sugarcane cultivation. According to the respondents, they ( 4 ) ca18376.10 have cultivated sugar-cane in around 20 gunthas of land and have deposited an amount of Rs. 29862=80 (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Two and Eighty Paise) in this Court. The respondents along with their reply have also filed on record copies of 7/12 extracts. It is contended by the respondent No.1 that he has not cultivated sugarcane crop in the agricultural land to the extent of 3 or 4 acres as alleged by the applicants. 5. Considering all these aspect, I am convinced that the application tendered by the applicants/original defendants needs no consideration. It is to be noted that immediately after passing of order an endeavour was made by presenting an application by the defendants seeking recall of the order, which failed and thereafter the respondents approached the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition. The applicants/original defendants were not successful before the Apex Court also and this is third attempt within a short span of six months for securing vacation of the order under one pretext or another. The application does not appear to be bonafide and the same deserves to be rejected. ( 5 ) ca18376.10 6. The application is, therefore, rejected with costs of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand). The amount of costs be deposited within four weeks from today. [R.M. BORDE, J.] snk/2011/MAR11/ca18376.10