ORDER : 1. The present Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed for seeking following reliefs : “(a) Be pleased to admit and allow this petition; (b) be pleased to call for the records of the Application Exh.42 in Special Civil Suit No.318 of 2014 and to quash and set aside the said impugned order dated 8.8.2014 being Annexure-G hereto passed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge & ACJM, Surat below Application at Exh.42 in Special Civil Suit No.318 of 2014 in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (c) be pleased to direct the learned Trial Court to frame and decide the issues raised in the Petitioners’ Application at Exh.42 in Special Civil Suit No.318 of 2014 viz. (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in the absence of any authority / power in favour of the deponents? (ii) In view of the order dated 14.11.2008 passed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, can the plaintiff be permitted to pursue the present suit on its own? (iii) Whether the suit is liable to be rejected under Order VI, Rule 16 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908? (iv) Whether the suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908? as preliminary issues by issuing suitable direction and/or order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India’ (d) be pleased to grant interim stay against the execution, implementation and operation of the said impugned order 8.8.2014 at Annexure-G to this petition and grant further interim stay against the proceedings of Special Civil Suit No.318 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge & ACJM, Surat till this petition is finally heard and decided; (e) be pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of relief prayed for in clause (d) above;” 2. This petition is essentially challenging the order passed below application Exh.42 dated 8.8.2014 in Special Civil Suit No.318 of 2014 which was converted from the summary suit. This petition is pending since 2014 when the Court issued notice for the first time on 13.10.2014 and thereafter, from time to time, the matter is got adjourned. This petition is essentially challenging the order passed below application Exh.42 dated 8.8.2014 in Special Civil Suit No.318 of 2014 which was converted from the summary suit. This petition is pending since 2014 when the Court issued notice for the first time on 13.10.2014 and thereafter, from time to time, the matter is got adjourned. Once upon a time, learned advocate Ms.K.J.Brahmbhatt, has received the instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No.1 but, then appears to have withdrawn her appearance on account of lack of instructions and as such, the petition is lying as it is and uncontested. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, at the outset, Mr.Maulik Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for Nanavati Advocates, has, without going into merit, declared before the Court that he is not inclined to argue the present petition on merit in view of the subsequent development and events which took place not only during the present petition but, during the pendency of the civil suit in the court below. Learned advocate has further submitted that not only in the suit proceedings but, even before this Court also, nobody has represented on behalf of the contesting respondents and they appear to have absconded throughout and as such, for want of instructions, the matter despite the direction from the Apex Court, has not been processed any further. Keeping these factors in mind, learned advocate has specifically requested not to deal with the matter on merit and permit him to take appropriate steps in the suit proceedings about service to be effected to the respondents herein. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has produced the gist of subsequent development, in brief, which has taken place during the pendency which is reproduced hereinafter : “Mr. Maulik Nanavati, learned Advocate appearing for Nanavati & Co., Advocates for the petitioner has at the outset submitted that he is not proposing to argue the present petition on merits in view of the events and developments that have taken place during the pendency of the suit and the present petition, and prays for disposal of the present petition with suitable and appropriate directions to the Civil Court. Mr. Mr. Nanavati, learned Advocate for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the plaint of Special Civil Suit No. 318 of 2014 (originally filed as Summary Suit No. 38 of 2003) and submitted that the suit has been filed by the company alleging defamation of the plaintiff company. He has stated that during pendency of the suit the plaintiff company has been ordered to be wound up by an order dated 14.11.2008 passed by this Court in Company Petition No. 210 of 2002. The said order has been annexed to the petition (page 80). He has stated that Advocate appearing for the plaintiff company before the Civil Court has retired and no new lawyer has been engaged by the plaintiff company. He has further stated that Directors of the plaintiff company are fleeing from justice and that warrants for their arrest have been issued by the competent criminal court. In this regard, he has invited attention of the Court to the observations made in paragraph 13 of the judgement dated 14.11.2008 wherein the Court has recorded that the directors of the company are absconding. He has stated that the Civil Court has issued notice to the plaintiff company, but the same has remained unserved till date. He has submitted that resultantly the suit of the year 2003 is not being proceeded before the Civil Court though a direction was given by the Supreme Court in its order dated 9.09.2013 for early disposal of the suit. Mr. Nanavati has declared that without prejudice to all rights and contentions as may be available in law to the defendant, the defendant (writ petitioner before this Court) shall cause a notice of the pendency of suit be taken out in local newspaper concerning the civil suit pending before the Civil Court as per provisions of Civil Procedure Code at its own cost, and prayed that a direction be given to the Civil Court to dispose of the suit, either for non-prosecution or on merits depending upon appearance of plaintiff company or on its behalf within a reasonable time. This Court notices that the Advocate originally appearing for the respondent company (original plaintiff company) before this Court has retired from the present case. A note has been filed by Advocate Ms. Kalpana Brahmbhatt in this regard, and the same is on record of the case. This Court notices that the Advocate originally appearing for the respondent company (original plaintiff company) before this Court has retired from the present case. A note has been filed by Advocate Ms. Kalpana Brahmbhatt in this regard, and the same is on record of the case. The original plaintiff is thus not represented by any lawyer in any proceeding, either before the Civil Court or this Court. The Court notices that the directors of the plaintiff company are absconding and therefore cannot be served with notice of the civil proceeding. The directors of the plaintiff company have not even responded to the communications by their own lawyers and have chosen to keep themselves away from the court proceedings. The suit cannot be proceeded further in absence of service and representation on behalf of plaintiff company.” 5. In view of aforesaid situation, when the Court is not called not to express anything on merit, not invited any order from the Court and just shown an inclination to take appropriate steps in the court below, without expressing any opinion on merit, this petition since requested to be disposed of, is hereby disposed of in following terms, relying upon the written brief note placed by Mr.Maulik Nanavati, learned advocate for the petitioner. (1) It would be open for the petitioner – company, who is defendant in the suit, to cause a notice of pendency of Special Civil Suit No.318 of 2014 by publishing in a daily newspaper having wide circulation at its own cost, specifically mentioning therein the next date of hearing to be given by the court below and such notice is permitted to be publihsed within a period of 15 days on receipt of the order of this Court, after getting appropriate date from the trial court concerned where the suit is pending. (2) It would also be open for the petitioner – company to submit the said process before the trial court concerned in the pending suit by appropriately requesting the trial court to take proper step for disposal and adjudication of the suit, in the interest of justice, on the basis of available material. (2) It would also be open for the petitioner – company to submit the said process before the trial court concerned in the pending suit by appropriately requesting the trial court to take proper step for disposal and adjudication of the suit, in the interest of justice, on the basis of available material. (3) It is expected that since the Apex Court has already issued direction vide order dated 9.9.2013 for early disposal of the suit, upon submission of the aforesaid process of issuance of notice etc., it would be open for the petitioner – company to place the same before the trial court concerned and request to dispose of the suit proceedings as early as possible, whereupon the trial court will consider the same and dispose of the suit proceedings, preferably within a period of 3 months thereafter. (4) It is made clear that this petition is disposed of as per the request of learned advocate for the petitioner and the Court has not expresed any opinion on merit as not called upon and it is independently open for the trial court concerned to take appropriate decision in the suit proceedings, strictly in accordance with law. 6. With these observations and directions, present petition stands disposed of, as not pressed. Notice is discharged. Direct service is permitted.