1 cra-315-11 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.315 of 2011 Bhandarshah Dargah Masjid Takiya (kabrastan) & Talim Trust & Ors. .. Applicants Versus Mohamed Ali Guru Murtuzasha @ Mohammed Ali Sayyed Gulamali & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. R.V. Govilkar for the Applicants Mr. Parag Dube for Respondent No.1 Mr. H.J.Dedhia AGP for Respondent Nos.4 & 5 CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 9th NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. : 1 The above Civil Revision Application is directed against the order dated 1-10-2009, by which order, the application filed by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Section 9A of the Civil Procedure Code, came to be rejected. The present Applicants are not the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 but third parties who seek to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that since the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 would not prosecute the suit in question, the suit is likely to be allowed by default. 2 The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners have placed reliance on 2 cra-315-11 Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and it is sought to be contended that this Court can suo-moto take cognizance of the proceedings in view of the fact that there is a material irregularity committed by the Trial Court in exercising jurisdiction. 3 In my view, since the lis was between the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the original Plaintiffs, it is not open for the Applicants to challenge the impugned order placing reliance on Section 115 of the Civil procedure Code. It is also required to borne in mind that the application filed by the Applicants under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for being impleaded has been rejected by the Trial Court, which rejection has been confirmed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5444 of 2010. In that view of the matter, no case for exercising revisionary jurisdiction is made out. The Revision Application is accordingly rejected. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)