Petitioner that the facts antecedent to 5th September, 2011 or 18th October, 2011 ought not to have been taken into consideration by the trial Court, is concerned, in my view, the said submission is misconceived. The trial Court has merely adverted to the said antecedent facts but has not relied upon them to reject the Application. The rejection of the Application is undoubtedly based on the facts past 5th September, 2011. Insofar as the judgment of the Apex Court in Arunima Baruah's case (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner Shri Sathaye, is concerned, the same is on the point of suppression of facts, which, in my view, is misplaced, as the order is not passed on the said basis. Insofar as the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Lachhiram Chudiwala's case (supra ), cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is concerned, the facts in the said case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case, as in the said case the antecedent facts were earlier considered whilst allowing the Defendants in the said case to file their written statement and it is in the said context, that the learned Single Judge held that the said facts could not be held against the Defendants to deprive them from relief in another application; in the instant case, as mentioned herein above, the antecedent
