1 Revn. Appln.No.41 of 2010 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 41 OF 2010 Sanjay U. Chavan ...Applicant. v. R.V.Constructions (Partnership Firm) & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.S.S.Deshmukh, adv. For the Applicant. Mr. Sandeep D. Shinde, adv. For the Respondent No.1. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : AUGUST 25, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 Plaintiff/applicant contended that the defendants had made certain construction in the city of Nashik in contravention of the rules and in spite of that, permission for construction not been cancelled. With this, the plaintiff sought declaration that the defendants had no legal right to make construction and injunction restraining the defendant from making any construction on the suit site. Plaintiff also filed application Ex.5 seeking temporary injunction against the defendants. In reply to that defendants contended that the plaintiff appears to have filed a suit in the nature of Public Interest Litigation and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. In view of this, to avoid further 2 Revn. Appln.No.41 of 2010 complications, plaintiff himself moved an application before the trial Court to frame preliminary issue about the jurisdiction under Section 9A of the C.P.C. That application was rejected observing that whether the suit is maintenable or not will be decided at the time of final hearing. 3 Admittedly, the plaintiff does not claim any personal interest in the suit property nor he has any personal dispute with the defendants. According to him, he being an alert and watchful citizen had filed the suit to stop illegal construction. In view of this stand and the pleadings, Civil Court could have heard parties and decided as to whether suit is tenable and whether Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. It will be futile exercise to ask the parties to lead the evidence and after complete trial to declare that suit is not maintenable and that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants pointed out that the defendant had filed writ petition no.8495 of 2009 against the Municipal Corporation wherein on behalf of the Municipal Corporation statement was made that there was no contravention of rules and writ petition was allowed in favour of the defendants. Anyhow, it is not necessary to make any comment on that aspect of the matter. In view of the above circumstances, it will be appropriate that the issue about the 3 Revn. Appln.No.41 of 2010 maintenability of the suit or the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain such a suit should be heard and decided as preliminary issue. 4 Therefore, in view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is hereby directed to frame the preliminary issue and decide the same after hearing the parties. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)