Harilal D. Vandaravala vs State Bank of India on 6 June 2025

1. The Applicant has filed the present Misc. Application with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 22.08.2017 passed in MA No.66/2014 and for rehearing of the said Misc. Application No. 66/2014. During the pendency of the present MA the Applicants have filed an Affidavit Ex.A/07 for withdrawal of the present MA i.e. MA No.68/2017 stating therein as under:

*"1. In the present case, the earlier Miscellaneous Application No.66/2014 was dismissed vide order dated 22/08/2017 on the grounds of delay and not on the merits of the case. It is pertinent to note that the demand notice and possession notice were not adjudicated on their merits by the Tribunal.*

*2. The Applicant challenged the said order dated 22/08/2017 by filing CMA No. 68/2017. However, the*

Bank subsequently obtained a fresh Section 14 order. Consequently, the Applicant filed a fresh Securitization Application (SA) No. 603/2022, challenging all the measures, including the demand notice, possession notice, and the fresh Section 14 order and all other measure, as they provide a fresh cause of action.

3. That filing of the fresh SA, the captioned CMA No. 68/2017 has become infructuous. The fresh SA has been listed for final hearing, and the Applicant does not wish to proceed with CMA No.68/2017. It is therefore respectfully prayed that the same may kindly be disposed of."

2. I have heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties and perused the record.

3. It is required to be noted that in view of the doctrine of *dominus litis*, the Applicants are the masters of their case and it is for them to decide where to continue the litigation or not. This Tribunal is therefore of the opinion that the Applicants may be permitted to withdraw the present MA unconditionally, with no order as to cost.

4. Order accordingly.

File be consigned to record.

(PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, AHMEDABAD

Nishita.