1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1247 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.776 OF 2009 WITH COURT RECEIVER S REPORT NO.72 OF 2010 ’ Shri Vilas Kedari Nikam .... Applicant Vs. Shri Rajnikant Appaji Shinde .... Respondents & Ors. Applicant present in person. Mr. D.M. Joshi, Advocate for respondent Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 9th July, 2010 P.C. 1. This Civil Application is taken out by the applicant for recalling of the order dated 18th December 2009. The application is opposed by the respondent. 2. By the order dated 18th December 2009, the First Appeal filed by the applicant to challenge the judgment and decree dated 20th October 1999 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court decreeing the suit filed by the respondent was dismissed in limine and the directions were given to the Court Receiver to hand over possession of the suit shed to the respondent, the decree-holder. The applicant preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 35 of 2010 against that 2 order which was withdrawn by him on 17th February 2010, as the same was not maintenable. He then preferred Special Leave Petition No. 6711 of 2010 before the Supreme Court to challenge the order. On 15th March 2010 after arguing the case for some time, the learned counsel for the appellant made a request for withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition. Accordingly the Special Leave Petition was allowed to be withdrawn. The learned counsel for the respondents has produced copies of both the orders for perusal of the court. With withdrawal of the challenge to the order by the applicant in the higher court, the order stands confirmed. In the circumstance, there can be no question of recalling of the order by this court. The present civil application filed on 18th March 2010 i.e. after withdrawal of Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court is a patently mischievous application. It is nothing but an attempt to hold on to the suit shed to which the applicant is not entitled to. Hence, the Civil Application is liable to be dismissed. 3. The manner in which this civil application has been conducted also leave much to be desired. On the last date i.e. on 18th June 2010, Mr. Holmagi for the applicant had sought an adjournment on the ground that the applicant desired to engage a Senior Counsel to argue the matter. Though ordinarily no adjournment is granted to either engage a Senior Counsel or for convenience of the Counsel, 3 by way of grace, the appellant was granted an adjournment of two weeks on the appellant paying costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent. Today Advocate Ms. Neeta Jain sought to appear in the matter stating that she has been briefed in the matter today morning and requested for time of two weeks. She stated that she is yet to sign the Vakalatnama as there is no endorsement of `No objection from ’ Mr. Holmagi on it. On realising the facts of the matter, Mrs. Jain states that she does not wish to file her Vakalatnama in the matter. 4. The Court Receiver has filed report dated 13th April 2010 stating that when his representative went to the suit shed on 2nd March 2010 and 3rd April 2010 for taking possession from the appellant, he was on the first occasion told about the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal in this Court and on second occasion the suit premises was found to be locked. The Court Receiver therefore seeks direction to take forcible physical possession of the suit premises by breaking upon the lock. 5. The Civil Application is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/-. 6. The Receiver s Report is allowed in terms of directions (a) and (c) ’ sought therein. ( Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)