:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7073 & 7080 OF 2007 M/s Sanjay Steel Corporation, .. Petitioners. Vs Vasant Shankar Kumbhar @ Purekar Respondent. Mr.Amit Borkar, for the petitioners. Mr. Surel S. Shah, for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 12TH MARCH, 2008. DATED : 12TH MARCH, 2008. DATED : 12TH MARCH, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Rule. Mr.Shah, learned counsel, waives service for the respondent. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the orders, both, dated 19.7.2007 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-3, Kolhapur in Civil Revision Application Nos 9 and 10 of 2006 rejecting the revision applications filed by the petitioners. Both the revisions under section 29(3) of the Bombay Rent Act were against the orders, both, dated 6.11.2000 passed by the trial Court on the applications at Exhibits 25 and 40 in Regular Civil Suit no.657 of 1997. The application at Exhibit 25 was filed by the respondent-plaintiff under section 33 of the Bombay Stamp Act,1958 (for short, "the :2: :2: :2: Act") for impounding of the disputed agreement dated 16.3.1983. The application at Exhibit-40 was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for striking of the defence. Both the applications were allowed by the trial Court. It appears that the petitioners had filed the review applications before the trial Court against the orders passed on the applications at Exhibits 25 and 40 and both the review applications were rejected vide order dated 24.1.2006 against which the petitioners preferred the aforementioned two revision applications, which came to be rejected by the orders impugned in the present writ petitions. 3. Both the revisions filed by the petitioners have been rejected by the court below mainly on the ground of limitation. The merits of the contentions urged by the petitioners were not considered and dealt with by the court below. It appears that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as referred to in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment dated 19.7.2007, in respect of an interpretation of the document dated 16.3 1983 as to whether it is a lease or a deed of mortgage or an agreement of lease, is not considered by the learned Judge. Even the judgment in M/s Conwood Agencies Pvt Ltd vs Namdeo Pandurang Panchal & Anr, 2005 (1) All MR 335 has also been not appreciated by the courts :3: :3: :3: below in proper perspective. In view thereof, learned counsel for the parties have fairly stated that I need not record long reasons for setting aside the impugned judgments. Having regard to overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice. (a) The impugned judgment and orders dated 19.7.2007 in both the revision applications are set aside. Both the revision applications bearing nos 9 and 10 of 2006 are restored to file. The court below shall endeavour to dispose of both the revision applications afresh on merits in accordance with law and in the light of the judgment of this court in M/s Conwood Agencies Pvt Ltd. The court below shall not enter into an issue of limitation. Both the Revisions be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. All contentions of the parties are kept open. The writ petitions are disposed of. . Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. :4: :4: :4: (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)