1 WP 312/2011 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 312 OF 2011 David Vere da Silva .. Petitioner V/s 1. Om prakash Navani 2. Smt. Phool Om Navani 3. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay 4. Edna Cecilia da Silva .. Respondents Mr. Shyam Mehta i/b Maneksha & Sethna for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Dani with Mr. Pratik Shah i/b Law Charter for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent nos.1 and 2. 2. This is a petition by the original defendant against an order dated 9th September 2010 passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, rejecting his application for review of an earlier order dated 14th January 2004. 2 WP 312/2011 3. The respondent nos.1 and 2 claim to be the owners and landlords of the suit premises. In the year 1990, the respondent nos.1 and 2 filed a suit against the petitioner and others for possession inter alia on the ground that the respondent nos.1 and 2 required the suit premises reasonably and bonafide for their own use and occupation. In the suit, the respondent nos.1 and 2 made an application for an interim order of injunction restraining the petitioner from transferring the suit premises till the disposal of the suit. The petitioner filed a reply opposing the application. The petitioner also filed an application under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure inter alia contending that the respondent nos.1 and 2 were not their landlords and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. He also requested the Court to frame a preliminary issue about its jurisdiction. By an order dated 31st March 1998, the trial Court framed an issue regarding its jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Thereafter it appears that the application for interim injunction was never heard as its hearing was not pressed by the respondent nos.1 and 2. As nothing happened for 13 years on 5th March 2003, when the suit was sufficiently old and perhaps one of the oldest suits on the file of the trial Court, it framed other issues and set out the suit for hearing. Thereupon the petitioner took out an application that the suit be 3 WP 312/2011 not heard and the preliminary issue be heard first. By order dated 14th January 2004, that application was rejected. The petitioner did not file any appeal but filed an application for review of the said order. By order dated 9th September 2010 the application for review was rejected. That order is impugned in the present petition. 5. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that any person, considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed or from which no appeal has been preferred, may apply for review of the order if he satisfies the Court that there exists a discovery of new or important matter or evidence, which after exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time when the order was made or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” are ejusdem generis to the earlier two grounds. Admittedly, this is not a case where the review has been applied on the ground of discovery of new evidence. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the original order dated 14th January 2004 contains an error apparent on the face of record. After hearing the parties, I am satisfied that there is no error 4 WP 312/2011 apparent on the face of record in the order dated 14th January 2004. Consequently the trial Court did not commit any error in declining to review the order. 6. That apart, it may be noted that under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure a preliminary issue is required to be framed if the jurisdiction of the Court is objected to at the hearing of any interim application. In the present case, though an interim application was made by the respondent nos.1 and 2, after the ad-interim order the respondent nos.1 and 2 never pressed for any interim relief. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2, on instructions, states that the respondent nos.1 and 2 are not pressing any interim relief and would not press further hearing of the interim application. As such, now there is no occasion for hearing of the application under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. There is yet another reason why I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The suit is of the year 1990. It is 21 years old. It must be heard one day or the other and the earlier it is the better it would be. Entertaining a writ petition and granting of a stay to the hearing would further delay the hearing of the suit which is not warranted. It would not be appropriate 5 WP 312/2011 to exercise an extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to entertain the writ petition at this stage. Consequently the writ petition is rejected summarily. 8. It is clarified that this order shall not be construed to mean that the issue of jurisdiction which has already been framed is not to be decided at the final hearing or at all in the suit. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)