-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1628 OF 2009 Mrs.Frainy Pesi Ragina & Ors. : Petitioners (Orig.Respondents) V/s. Mrs.Jeroo R. Engineer : Respondent (Orig.Appellant) ... Mr.P.S.Dani i/b. M/s.Vaibhav Mehta & Associates for the petitioners. Mr.V.A.Thorat with Mr.P.K.Vyas and Ms M.V.Thakkar i/b. Ms S.V.Thakkar for the respondent. .... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : APRIL 9, 2009. P.C. 1. This petition is directed against the order of the Bench of Small Causes at Bombay dated 22.10.2008 by which the learned Small Causes Court has set aside the decree of dismissal of R.A.E. Suit No.488/829 of 2001 and decreed the suit with costs directing the petitioners to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises in favour of the respondent on or before 1.2.2009. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent raises a -: 2 :- preliminary objection to the petitioners’ entitlement to maintain this petition in view of the past conduct, which is matter of record of this Court. The facts on which the preliminary objection is based are as follows:- On 20.1.2009 Writ Petition no.1628 of 2009 was filed. This Writ Petition was produced along with a praecipe for urgent production for extension of stay on 21.1.2009 which was served on the respondent on 20.1.2009. The matter was moved before a learned single Judge of this Court for extension of stay. Apparently at 3.00 p.m. on that day, the petitioners withdrew the praecipe without informing the respondent. On 23.1.2009, the Court considered the petitioners’ prayer for withdrawal and allowed the petition to be withdrawn unconditionally. 3. Having withdrawn the Writ Petition, on 27.1.2009 the petitioners preferred Civil Revision Application No.14 of 2009. This Civil Revision Application was produced before another learned single Judge of this Court for extension of stay. This application was opposed by the respondent. However, this Court apparently granted stay, in view of the judgement of this Court holding that a Civil Revision Application is maintainable. The matter was stood over to 16.2.2009. Thereafter, the Civil -: 3 :- Revision Application was again produced for extension of stay and stay was extended till 5.3.2009 and the matter stood over to 4.3.2009. This went on for sometime and in the Civil Revision Application, stay was extended eventually till 23.3.2009 and the matter was stood over to 20.3.2009. Apparently, the petitioners stated that they would seek clarification from the learned Judge who had allowed the withdrawal of the Writ Petition. Again the petitioners made a prayer for extension of the stay in the Civil Revision Application till 8.4.2009 and the matter was stood over to 6.4.2009. Eventually, on 2.4.2009 Civil Application No.886 of 2009 came up before the learned single Judge who had granted withdrawal of the Writ Petition. The learned Judge considered it appropriate to restore the Writ Petition however specifically leaving the question of the petitioners’ conduct open for consideration at the time of the admission hearing of the matter. It is on that basis that the learned counsel for the respondent has reagitated this issue. 4. Mr.Thorat, the learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that right from the date the time granted by the Small Causes Court expired, for some reason or the other, the petitioners have applied for and got stay of the order against him initially in Writ Petition which -: 4 :- was withdrawn unconditionally and then in the Civil Revision Application. Mr.Thorat submits that the Writ Petition was withdrawn unconditionally and yet the petitioners moved the Civil Revision Application in the same matter and obtained a stay from this Court. It is only upon pointing out and objecting to the maintainability of the Civil Revision Application on the ground that the earlier petition was withdrawn unconditionally that it has reached this stage of the hearing after the learned single Judge restored the Writ Petition. Mr.Dani, the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners had prayed for withdrawal of the Writ Petition with liberty to file a Civil Revision Application and, therefore, there is nothing wrong in filing the Civil Revision Application. The learned counsel further submits that all events have taken place without any motive on the part of the petitioners. Having considered the matter, it appears difficult to overlook and condone the conduct of the petitioners in approaching this Court and thereafter. Even if the petitioners had prayed for liberty to file a Civil Revision Application, they were bound to act only on the basis of the order which categorically did not include any liberty to file a Civil Revision Application. Further, after having withdrawn the Writ Petition, the -: 5 :- petitioners are bound in law to disclose that they had filed a Writ Petition by way of a statement to that effect in the Civil Revision Application. On the other hand, the petitioners made a statement in paragraph 11 to the following effect:- "....... no other Appeal/Revision/Writ Petition challenging the impugned judgement and order is either filed or pending is (sic) this Hon’ble Court or in Supreme Court of India". 5. The duty to make such a statement is a well-established practice in this Court. It may be noted that this practice has been made into an enacted rule vide rule 1 of Chapter XVII of the High Court (Appellate Side) Rules mandatorily requiring a party to make such a statement in writ petitions. The mischief that this rule is intended to prevent is obvious. In the circumstances, there was no reason, except an ill-conceived one, for the petitioners to file a Civil Revision Application after the Writ Petition was withdrawn unconditionally and that too without stating in the Civil Revision Application that a Writ Petition had earlier been filed. Such a practice must be discouraged by this Court. Mr.Thorat, the learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that -: 6 :- the petitioners were deliberately delaying adjudication of the matter before this Court to deprive his client, who is about 90 years old, the fruit of the decree, particularly having regard to her age. That may or may not be so. However, the practice such as this needs to be deprecated and discouraged even if a motive cannot be easily seen or established before the Court. 6. In this view of the matter, I find that the petitioners’ conduct disentitle them the relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed with costs. 8. At this stage, Mr.Dani, the learned counsel for the petitioners, prays for stay of the decree of the Small Causes Court to enable the petitioners to resort to the remedies in law. Having regard to the conduct of the petitioners, the application for stay is rejected. S.A. BOBDE, J.