: 1 : ao.129.2011.sxw vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.129 OF 2011 A/W CIVIL APPLICATION NOL191 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.129 OF 2011 Smt.Manju Baliram Dhakwal & Ors. ... Appellants V/s. Mohan Madhukar Naik & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.V.S. Kapse for Appellants Mr.Pankaj Thatte for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr.Sanjay Kadam for Resp. No.4 CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE: JULY 13, 2011 P.C.: 1. The appeal was preferred by the original plaintiffs against the impugned order whreeby the City Civil Court had directed the return of the plaint to the plaintffs on the ground that the prayer clause © in the plaint is beyond the pecuniary jurisidction of that Court. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants seeks to delete the prayer clause © and according to him, with the deletion of prayer clause (c) in the plaint, the Suit will be within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. However, the learned Counsel for the defendant-respondent contends that the objection of : 2 : ao.129.2011.sxw jurisdiction was also on the ground that the plaintiffs are seeking 3/4th share in the tenancy rights and, therefore, that question can be decided only by the Small Causes Court and not by the City Civil Court. However, on that point, there was no finding of the City Civil Court. 2. In view of the above, the appellants are allowed to withdraw the appeal and the civil application with liberty to delete prayer clause (c) from the plaint so as to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court. 3. The Appeal and the application are disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. However, after deletion of the prayer clause (c), the City Civil Court shall hear the parties on the question as to whether the City Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the nature of the subject matter of the suit. (J.H. BHATIA, J.)