PREMIER AUTOMOBILES LIMITED Vs. VIRENDRA NAVNITLAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent heard finally.

(2.) THE first appeal i.e. A.O. No.946 of 2005 arises from the order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court at Mumbai dismissing Notice of Motion No.2484 of 2005 filed by the defendants in S.C. Suit No.780 of 2004 and the second appeal i.e. A.O. No.963 of 2005 arises from the order dated 30/6/2005 making Notice of Motion No.2777 of 2004 absolute in terms of prayer clause (a)(i)(ii) in the very same suit. The appellants in both the appeals are the defendants in S.C. Suit No.780 of 2004. The defendants had prayed that the order dated 30/6/2005 allowing the Notice of Motion partly was passed ex parte and, therefore, they had moved a fresh Notice of Motion registered as Notice of Motion No.2484 of 2005 praying for vacating the order dated 30/6/2005 passed ex parte and this Notice of Motion was dismissed on 6/9/2005. Thus, effectively the challenge by the defendants is to the order dated 30/6/2005.

(3.) SO far as the first prayer in Notice of Motion No.2777 of 2004 and as granted by the trial court is concerned, no reasons are necessary to be recorded to hold that the said order was inoperative even when it was passed on 30/6/2005 and the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs fairly stated that the plaintiffs would not press for the same relief. Therefore, the challenge to the order dated 30/6/2005 is required to be examined only in respect of prayer clause (a)(ii) in Notice of Motion No.2777 of 2004.