JUDGMENT - M.L. PENDSE, J.:---These proceedings are commenced by the Advocate-General under section 2(1) of the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1971. The relief claimed is that the proceedings instituted by respondents 1 and 2 in Civil, Criminal and Co-operative Courts should be stayed and the respondents should be prevented from instituting any further proceedings. The facts set out in the application for seeking the relief are as follows: 2. The Advocate-General claims that one Smt. Madhubala Sharma, Advocate, instructed the Advocate-General that the respondents are habitually and without any reasonable ground instituting vexatious proceedings in diverse Courts against Haresh, who is elder son of respondents 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 is a younger brother of Haresh. The Advocate-General claims that respondent No. 1 and Haresh are partners in firms, Messrs Lilaram Shewaram and the firm is carrying on business in money-lending. Haresh and respondent No. 1 are also carrying on business as partners in the firm known as Shewa Udyog. It is then claimed that Haresh contracted marriage with a Maharashtrian girl and that annoyed the respondents and the respondents suggested that Haresh should divorce his Maharashtrian wife. Haresh refused to accede to the suggestion and this led to the filing of civil and criminal proceedings which are 19 in number. The 19 cases are set out in paragraph 6 of the application and the details thereof are given in paragraph 8 of the application. The Advocate-General claims that in the civil suits the claim made by the respondents is not sustainable and in criminal cases the allegations are made without any evidence. On these averments, the applicant prays that the respondents should be prevented from instituting any proceedings in Civil, Criminal and Co-operative Court or any other Tribunal and the proceedings already instituted should not be permitted to be prosecuted. 3. In answer to the petition respondent No. 1 has filed affidavit affirmed on June 13, 1989 and the perusal of the same indicates how the application was instituted by the Advocate-General on erroneous information. In Paragraph 7 of the return it is pointed out that out of the list of 19 cases listed in the application, items at Nos. 5 and 6 are repeated as Items 13 and 14. The respondents pointed out that these Items are identical and referred to two suits filed in the Ulhasnagar Court. In Paragraph 7 of the return it is pointed out that out of the list of 19 cases listed in the application, items at Nos. 5 and 6 are repeated as Items 13 and 14. The respondents pointed out that these Items are identical and referred to two suits filed in the Ulhasnagar Court. The respondents then pointed out that out of the 17 Items, 7 are civil suits and 10 are criminal cases. The respondents then set out the break-up of the civil suits. Two suits are filed by respondent No. 1 on the Original Side of this Court against Messrs Retrite Engineering Company Private Limited for recovery of possession of premises and in these suits Haresh was not a party but got himself added as party-defendant by taking out Chamber Summons. Three suits are instituted in Ulhasnagar Court by three different parties who encroached upon the land of respondent No. 1 and in these suits along with respondent No. 1, Haresh is joined as party-defendant, being a partner of the firm. It is obvious that these three suits are not instituted by the respondents at their behest. One suit is filed in the Co-operative Court by respondent No. 3 for declaration against Crescent Co-operative Housing Society Limited in respect of Flat No. 24-A owned by him and which has been illegally transferred in the name of Haresh. Respondent No. 1 has filed Suit No. 4120 of 1984 against the petitioner in the City Civil Court, Bombay, seeking accounts of business activities carried on in the name of Messrs Renovations. Looking to the break-up of the suits, it is obvious that the claim of Haresh that suits have been instituted against him by the respondents without reasonable cause or vexatiously is nothing but a figment of imagination. In fact, Haresh himself has instituted five suits against the respondents and which fact was conveniently not disclosed to the Advocate-General. 4. Break-up of 10 criminal cases is also given in the return filed by respondent No. 1. Three cases are filed in Andheri Metropolitan Magistrate's Court in respect of factory premises at Marol. Out of them one is against the Directors of Messrs Retrite Engineering Company Private Limited, Haresh Bhojwani and Sub-Inspector of Police Dabhade of M.I.D.C. Police Station who have conspired to take forcible possession of one room in the factory premises. Three cases are filed in Andheri Metropolitan Magistrate's Court in respect of factory premises at Marol. Out of them one is against the Directors of Messrs Retrite Engineering Company Private Limited, Haresh Bhojwani and Sub-Inspector of Police Dabhade of M.I.D.C. Police Station who have conspired to take forcible possession of one room in the factory premises. The other case is an application under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while the third case is instituted against Haresh Bhojwani for cheating and handing over possession of a part portion of the factory premises to Messrs Retrite Engineering Company Private Limited. Again one case is instituted in Ulhasnagar Court by respondent No. 1 against Haresh for cheating and conspiring with others in giving away property. One criminal case is filed in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar, by the authority of the Shops and Establishments Act against Haresh and respondent No. 1. Remaining five criminal cases are instituted in the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court at Bandra by respondent No. 2, the mother of Haresh. One case is for depriving her of her valuable right in flat No. 24/A of Crescent Co-operative Housing Society Limited. The second case is filed against Haresh and his wife for failure to return her golden jewellery and ornaments. Third case is filed by the mother against Haresh for forging her signatures and obtaining transfer of telephone. Remaining two criminal cases are filed by respondent No. 1 against Haresh for causing bodily injuries and writing defamatory letter. Taking into consideration the break-up of these criminal cases, it is impossible to hold that the proceedings are vexatious in nature. 5. We enquired from Mr. Page, learned Public Prosecutor, as to what is the basis for suggesting that the proceedings are instituted without any reasonable cause and the Public Prosecutor could not give a satisfactory reply. Now, we find from the petition that three proceedings are instituted in the year 1984, one proceeding in the year 1985, one in the year 1986, one in 1987 and two in the year 1988. We have left out the proceedings which are instituted by strangers against Haresh and the respondents. One wonders what promoted haresh to move Advocate-General in the year 1989 to take action under the provisions of the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, when the proceedings are instituted from the year 1984 onwards. We have left out the proceedings which are instituted by strangers against Haresh and the respondents. One wonders what promoted haresh to move Advocate-General in the year 1989 to take action under the provisions of the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, when the proceedings are instituted from the year 1984 onwards. We are unable to find from the petition filed by the Advocate-General as to the reason which led to the conclusion that the proceedings are without any reasonable cause. It is now well settled that merely because the proceedings are likely to be decided against the party, it cannot lead to the conclusion that the proceedings instituted by that party are vexatious or without any reasonable cause. We are not required to examine whether the proceedings would ultimately succeed on merits or otherwise. It is necessary for the Advocate General before seeking relief under the Act to establish that the proceedings were instituted without any reasonable cause and the person instituting the proceedings was instigated by motive and was abusing the process of the Court. We are unable to find any material in the petition to warrant such a conclusion. In our judgment, the petition is without any merit and the relief is required to be turned down. 6. Accordingly petition fails and rule is discharged. Rule discharged. -----