spb/- 1 wp1219-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1219 OF 2011 Shri Ganpat Vithuji Shinde & Ors. ... Petitioners. V/s. Sou. Yamuna Ganpat Bajage & Ors. ... Respondents. --- Mr. U.B. Nighot for the Petitioners. Mr. S. M. Suryawanshi for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. ----- CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 25TH AUGUST, 2011. P.C. : 1 An order passed below Exh. 120 in RC Suit No. 48 of 2004 on 06.01.2011 is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. In view of the order passed below Exh.120, the court has allowed the parties to argue the application at Exh. 54 alongwith Exh. 23. Counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that such a course was not open for the trial court as a similar request made earlier for hearing all the three applications was turned down and the trial court framed a preliminary issue and further issued directions to the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence, if any, on the point of preliminary issue. After lapse of considerable time, another application is made by the plaintiffs spb/- 2 wp1219-11.sxw seeking amendment to the plaint thereby the plaintiff wants the said application to be heard alongwith the application raising preliminary objections at Exh. 23 and the court has permitted the request made by the plaintiff. The counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that such a course would not be permissible considering the dilatory tactics on the part of the plaintiffs. In my view, no prejudice would likely to be caused to the parties if the court proceeds to hear and decide both the applications simultaneously. The trail court shall deal with the issue of jurisdiction to try and decide the suit and if the court comes to the conclusion that it has jurisdiction to deal with the suit the court may proceed to decide application at Exh. 54 and other applications in accordance with law. 2 With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. [R.M. BORDE,J]