1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4899/2010 ( Mataruprasad Buddhuram Gupta -: VERSUS :- Karnataka Empta Coal Mines Ltd.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 19 th NOVEMBER 2010. Heard Adv. Shri Bisen for petitioner and Adv. Shri Mehadia for respondent in response to notice for final disposal. Adv. Shri Bisen contends that application at Exh.23 though mentions provisions of Order I Rule 10, it also satisfies requirements of Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. and therefore, Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadrawati ought to have considered that application and allowed it. Adv. Shri Mehadia states that scope of Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 is entirely different and hence trial Court has rightly permitted the petitioner to move proper application. According to him there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. After hearing the respective counsel, I find that petitioner – plaintiff can be permitted to move application under Order VI Rule 17 afresh and application at Exh.23 can be treated 2 as application under Order I Rule 10 and can be decided by trial Court together with application under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., if moved. To enable the plaintiff – petitioner to move said application under Order VIRule 17 and to enable the trial Court to consider the application impugned order dated 14/9/2010 is set aside. The trial Court shall apply its mind to merits of application at Exh.23 in the light of provisions of Order I Rule 10 and shall consider application under Order VI Rule 17 and pass appropriate orders. Writ petition is thus partly allowed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Tambaskar.