Full Judgment
MCC No.960/13 14.8.2013 Shri Dileshwar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.
This case is listed today for appropriate order on the question of maintainability.
As per Office note, the present petition has been filed on behalf of the applicants for restoration/readmission of the Arbitration Appeal No.5/10, which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 10.12.2012 and before filing the present petition for restoration, on behalf of the same applicants for the same relief, the MCC No.310/13 was also filed on dated 1.3.2013.
So in such premises, for restoration of the same Arbitration Appeal two different petitions could not be entertained.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, on making certain query from the applicants’ counsel on which he said that, he did not aware about the aforesaid earlier petition for restoration.
Repeatedly on asking from the counsel whether he is ready to withdraw the same with liberty to press aforesaid earlier petition (MCC No.310/10) even then, he did not make any statement in this respect.
After perusing the record of MCC No.310/13, filed on 1.3.2013, tagged with the present petition, I have found that said earlier petition was filed for restoration of the same Arbitration Appeal No.5/10.
So, in such premises, I am of the considered view that for one cause of action two separate proceedings could not be permitted as the same is not permissible under the law.
Consequently, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, this petition is hereby dismissed by extending a liberty to press the aforesaid MCC No.310/13.
Let the record of this petition be tagged with MCC No.310/10.
(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge Pb