1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.726 OF 2009 Sahadeo Hari Kamble ..Applicants (Since deceased) through Lr. V/s. Ramchandra Pandurang Kamble ..Respondents (Since deceased) through Lrs. Mr.S.M.Kamble, Advocate, for the Applicants Mr.M.R.Katikar, Advocate, for the Respondents CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 7TH JULY, 2010 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Even the learned Counsel for the Applicants does not dispute that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to frame and refer the issue to the tenancy Court, but he contends that the learned Judge should have stayed further proceedings in the suit. By the impugned Order the learned Judge has held that 2 he had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit subject to reference being made to tenancy Court at appropriate stage. If the Applicant prays for stay of the suit Trial Court may decide it either ways on merits. The Applicant need not harbour apprehension that injunction Application would be decided against him. 3. Civil Revision Application is misconceived and therefore rejected. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)