1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 523 of 2010 IIN WRIT PETITION NO. 5596 of 2008 Prabhunarayan Singh & ors. ....Applicant Vs. Amum Builders & ors. ....Respondents Ms. P.M. Bhansali i/b. Mr. Vikrant K. Narkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. P.S.Dani, Advocate for respondent no.1. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATED:- March 26, 2010 P.C. Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Advocate on record Mr. Vikrant Narkar is in personal difficulty. Request for adjournment is made on that count. Counsel appearing for the Respondents, however, has opposed the prayer for adjournment on the ground that on account of pendency of this Application, the other proceedings pending in th is Court being Writ Petition No. 6824/2009 is not being taken up for hearing. 2. In this view of the matter, I have examined the grievance of the Applicant in the present Application. The grievance is essentially about the observations made by me in Paragraph 2 of my order dated 1st April, 2009 to the effect that the correctness of the 2 decision of the Lower Court has not been challenged before this Court in the present Writ Petition. In my opinion, the statement so made does not need any clarification or modification. The order dated 1st April, 2009 if read as a whole makes it more than clear that the merits of the controversy pending before the Trial Court was not considered either in the Judgment which was subject matter of Appeal in Writ Petition or for that matter in the order passed by me on 1st April, 2009. The sole question that was addressed by me was regarding the correctness of the view taken by the Subordinate Court about the maintainability of Appeal. 2. In the circumstances, this Application is disposed of on the above terms. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)