(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. Upon notice being issued pursuant to order dated 29.8.2012 herein, learned counsel, Mr.Anshin Desai has appeared for Union of India. He submitted that another petition by the same petitioner being Special Civil Application No.7047 of 2012 substantially raising the same issues and joining as respondents, the creditor banks, has been heard by another Division Bench of this Court and dismissed by a detailed order dated 13.9.2012 with pertinent observations as under:
"10. It is only an example of the manner in which the party-in-person presented the case which strictly speaking amounts to misrepresentation of facts, but as stated hereinabove, the Court granted him indulgence and allowed him to argue at length as mentioned hereinabove. The party in person invited the attention of the Court not only to his petition but also to his rejoinder which he filed in reply to the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No.1, running from page No.625 to page No.630. The court did not stop the party-in-person from reading the entire affidavit-in-rejoinder because the court felt that if no relief can be granted to the party-in-person in the facts of the case at least `hearing' be given so that he has no grievance that he was not heard. The Court did not find any substance in any of the submissions made by the party-in-person. Hence this petition is dismissed.
10. As stated hereinabove, taking into consideration the way the matter is argued on the basis of individual's understandings of law and the facts, the matter deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs, but as the indulgence was granted right from the beginning, further indulgence is granted and no costs are imposed on the party-in-person. Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated."
2. On the basis of above observations in the petitioner's own petition raising substantially the same issues, learned counsel, Mr.Anshin Desai, submitted that party-in-person was abusing the process of Court by repeatedly approaching this Court in different forms of petitions, insisting upon appearing as party-in-person, arguing at length and in the meantime stalling the recovery proceedings.
3. Learned counsel Ms.Nalini Lodha submitted that Bank of Baroda which was party in the previous proceeding being Special Civil Application No.7047 of 2012 is vitally interested in the present proceeding, since if any interim relief is granted as prayed in the petition, Bank of Baroda would be affected without being heard. Therefore, Bank of Baroda has already filed a Civil Application for being joined as party respondent in the present petition. Learned counsel, Mr.Sameet Bhatt appearing for M/s.Singhi and Company also made similar grievance on behalf of ICICI Bank and submitted that that bank also proposes to file an application for being joined as party respondent.
4. The party-in-person, Mr.Jatin Hiralal Shah, submitted that prayers made in the present petition admittedly included, though indirectly, the relief of staying recovery of amounts due to the banks to the tune of Rs.55 Crores. He also submitted that, as against that amount due, the banks concerned were pledged properties worth nearly Rs.75 Crores and the petitioner did not propose to and could not stall the recovery proceedings in accordance with law merely by pendency of present proceeding and he was required to be heard at length for admission of the petition and grant of relief if he is found to be entitled to such relief.
5. In the above facts, it prima facie appears that the petitioner is making repeated attempts at stalling the recovery proceedings even after order dated 13.9.2012, as aforesaid, of Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.7047 of 2012; although he has insisted that some new grievance and grounds have been added in present petition. However, in order to prevent any abuse of the process of Court and to secure compensation or cost which may be awarded to the respondent in the present proceeding, the petitioner is directed to deposit with the registry sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Thousand only) by the next date of hearing as a condition precedent to the petition being entertained. The petition is ordered to be listed for admission hearing on 7th November 2012. In the meantime, it will be open for the banks concerned to file their applications and move them for hearing along with present petition on the next date of hearing.
(D.H.Waghela, J.) (Z.K.Saiyed, J.) *malek