JUDGMENT - V.C. DAGA, J. :---Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused record and proceedings. This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree passed by the Bombay City Civil Court, Mumbai on 30-8-2001, in L.C. Suit No. 6306/1984, whereby the suit has been dismissed under Order 15, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('C.P.C.' for short). The parties hereinafter, shall be referred to as arrayed in the original suit.

BACKGROUND FACTS

The facts necessary to appreciate rival contentions may be stated briefly:

2. The appellants/original plaintiffs, claiming to be the monthly tenants of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (original defendant No. 2), in respect of the suit property, since prior to 1962, filed a suit on 31-8-1984 mainly against the defendant No. 1, challenging the notices issued under section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 ('Act' for the sake of brevity), directing removal and/or demolition of unauthorised structures alleged to have been constructed by the plaintiffs.

In the aforesaid suit, plaintiffs were protected by an ad-interim order of injunction till the dismissal of suit on 30-8-2001. If one turns to the order sheets of the suit, it would be clear that during the period 5-12-2000 to 16-5-2001, almost on all occasions the suit was posted for issuing directions, but it was adjourned without any progress for want of time to the Presiding Judge to issue necessary directions. It appears that the suit was finally taken up for framing issues on 1-8-2001, without issuing any directions for which the suit was adjourned from time to time. On this date, trial Court framed issues under Order 14, Rule 1 read with Order 15, Rule 3(1), C.P.C. and adjourned it to 30-8-2001, for dismissal of the suit instead of adjourning it for further hearing under sub-rule (2).

3. On the adjourned date, the Counsel for plaintiffs, along with plaintiffs No. 2 were present in the Court. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs requested for adjournment on the ground that none of the plaintiffs except the plaintiff No. 2 were present and that the plaintiff No. 2 was not ready with the evidence so as to proceed with the suit.

4. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs though present in the above circumstances, did not take any steps to proceed with the suit. This attitude of the plaintiffs was treated as an attempt to protract suit in which ad-interim relief was operating in favour of the plaintiffs right from the year 1984. The trial Court also noticed that no document was filed along with plaint. Not a single document was produced on record during this long period of 16 years during which suit was pending. The trial Court also took into account the various dates when the plaintiffs and their Counsel were absent. The Court below, finding that the plaintiffs were casual in proceeding with the suit and not ready to lead evidence, proceeded to dismiss the suit under Order 15, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. The suit came to be dismissed. It is against this order, in the nature of decree, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal under section 96 of the C.P.C.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellants on being questioned as to what type of directions were contemplated and/or expected by the parties or what type of directions are normally issued by the trial Court when the suit is posted for direction. The learned Counsel for the appellants informed me that there is a practice prevailing in Bombay City Civil Court to issue directions to the parties to complete discovery, inspection and/or exchange of documents and if necessary, to file affidavits in support of their respective documents. In order to establish this practice, certain order sheets have also been produced on record. This practice seems to be prevalent in the City Civil Court at Bombay. It is not necessary for the purpose of decision of this appeal to dwell upon the question : to what extent this practice has a support of procedural law.

THE ISSUES

6. The substantive question which nee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document