1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Revision Application No.86 of 2010 (Ramesh s/o Sriramji Khobragade v. Ambadas s/o Hemraj Lanjewar) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri K.R. Trivedi, Advocate for Applicant. Shri P.A. Markendeywar, Advocate for Respondent. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 23 th November, 2010 This civil revision application challenges the order dated 7-7-2010 passed by the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur on the application below Exhibit 50, which was filed under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the suit is barred by the provisions of Sections 22 and 42 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The Trial Court has rejected the said application by the impugned order and the finding relevant, recorded in para 17 of the said order, is reproduced below : “ Already the application filed by defendant is allowed and he has incorporated the point which is raised by him in written statement. The defendant has to prove about his fact, by leading evidence and unless and until it is come on record on the point of situation of the property whether it comes within the zone of slum area or not, the 2 said point can not be considered considering the legal provisions and precedent laid down by the hon’ble Apex court, I find the question jurisdiction can not be decided at this juncture, as it is a mixed question of facts and law therefore, the present application is devoid of any merits, accordingly, it is rejected.” The question whether the property is situated in the slum area or not, is a disputed question of fact, which is required to be proved by leading oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the evidence of the competent authority recorded in Regular Civil Suit No.471 of 2005 has been placed on the record of Regular Civil Suit No.470 of 2005 in support of the submission that the property is situated in the slum area and, therefore, the provisions of the said Act are attracted. The question whether such evidence recorded in the other suit is admissible as evidence in the present suit, is required to be gone into. Similarly, no fault can be found with the finding recorded by the Trial Court and the question involved is a disputed question of fact, which is required to be proved by leading oral as well as documentary evidence. Hence, no fault can be found with the order passed by the Court below. There is no substance in the present civil revision application and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl