(1.) This is a notice of motion before this appellate Court asking for a certain compromise referred to in para. 11 of the affidavit of Ranjit C. Raiji, filed on July 15, 1926, to be approved; and for two immovable properties at Hornby Road and Colaba, forming part of the estate of the deceased Bai Mamubai, to be vested in the Receiver and to be conveyed to the appellants; and for a certain loan to be repaid; and for directions as to custody of certain securities on charity account; and for monthly disbursements out of the interest; and for an order that the Receiver may be allowed to settle and pay certain bills of costs. Prior to this notice of motion being actually taken out, an application was made, by the attorneys for the applicants, to me to fix a date for the hearing of the notice of motion. By two notes made by me, and subsequently communicated to the solicitors, dated July 15 and 20, I stated that it appeared to me that the applicants were applying to the wrong Court, but that if they insisted on the matter being argued, it could be argued in Court at their own risk as to costs.
(2.) To-day Mr. Desai, who appears for the applicants, admits at once that the application has been made to the wrong Court, and that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear it, but he submits that the application can and should be made to the Court of first instance. Mr. Setalvad for Defendants Nos. 14 and 15 appears here merely to consent, and has nothing further to urge in the matter.
(3.) There are then two points : (1) whether this application can be made to the appellate Court; and (2) whether it can be made to the Court of first instance. As regards the first point, it is absolutely clear that this notice of motion is wholly misconvceived. One reason is that, as far as this appellate Court is concerned, the matter was finally disposed of be its decree of September 15, 1925, and, consequently, any further application in the suit would have to be made to the Court of first instance in the ordinary way.