1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.443/2007 M/s Field Mining and Ispat Ltd. vs. Shri Govind Daga and others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P.LAVANDE, J DATE : 4.9.2008 Heard Mr. S.V.Manohar, learned counsel with Mr. Dewani learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dangre, learned counsel for respondents. The respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs in Special civil Suit No. 929/06 filed against the petitioner and respondent no.3 which is pending before the Fourth Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.1.2007 passed by the trial court by which the trial court directed that the application Exh. 27 filed by the respondents 1 and 2 under Section 9A(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (“The Code” for short) shall be decided on the next date. The petitioner had filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code on the ground that the suit filed by respondents 1 and 2 was not maintainable. According to the petitioner, the trial court ought to have decided application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code first before deciding the application under Section 9(A)(2) of the Code. The trial Court rejected the prayer made by the petitioner and passed the impugned order. 2` Mr. Dangre, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that although the impugned order cannot be faulted on merits he will have no objection if the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code is decided first and thereafter the trial court decides the application for interim relief filed by the plaintiffs. He further submitted that the trial court be directed to decide both these applications within the time frame. Mr. Manohar appearing for the petitioner has no objection if the prayer made by Mr. Dangre is granted. In view of the concession made by Mr. Dangre for respondents 1 and 2 and in view of the fact that the impugned order has been passed on 18.1.2007 and the period of almost 1 ½ year has passed thereafter without going into merits of the impugned order I deem it appropriate to direct the trial court to decide the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code filed by the petitioner first after hearing the parties. The trial Court shall decide the application within a period of 4 weeks from the date of appearance of the parties before the trial Court. In case the trial court decides the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code against the petitioner the trial court shall then decide the application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the code within the period of four weeks thereafter. The parties shall appear before the trial court on 10.9.2008 at 11.00 a.m.. The writ petition stands disposed of. Judge patle 3`