1701cra102.10.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 102 OF 2010 (Kailashchandra Jankilal Bundiwal & others Vs. Ashok Jagdishchandra Bundiwal & another) ...................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ...................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. R. M. Sharma, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. S. V. Bhutada, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 17TH JANUARY, 2011. 1. This civil revision application is preferred by defendants No. 1, 2 & 3 in Regular Civil Suit No. 411 of 2009 challenging the order passed below Exh. 52 on 24/9/2010 by the learned 8th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, filed by the applicants. The trial Court has recorded finding that the Court is not required to consider the defence of the other side when the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. is being considered. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the relationship as to the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants came to an end on the date of handing over the possession of the tenanted premises by defendant No.3 and the undisputed position is that the possession of the suit property is with the plaintiff. It has been held that the issue of jurisdiction is connected with the merits of the matter and hence the plaint cannot be rejected on 1701cra102.10.odt 2/3 this sole ground under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. 2. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicants has urged that the issue as to whether there subsists relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants is totally irrelevant to decide the issue of jurisdiction. For this purpose, he has relied upon the following judgments of this Court. i) AIR 1993 BOMBAY 1 (C. K. Talwar Vs. M/s. Rallis India Ltd.) ii) 1998(3) Mh.L.J. 354 (Raghunath P. Singhania Vs. Yasin T. Mavany) iii) 2006(2) Mh.L.J. 612 (Subhash Joshi & another Vs. Mohd. Sultan Abdul Gani & another) 3. According to him, the suit simplicitor for permanent injunction is also maintainable before the Small Causes Court under the provision of Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. 4. I have gone through the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the applicants. None of the judgments are rendered on the application under 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. All the questions pertaining to jurisdiction of the Court to entertain, try and decide the suit cannot be decided under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and it will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the nature of the question, as to whether such an issue can be decided under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. If the issue as to the jurisdiction is connected with the merits of a 1701cra102.10.odt 3/3 claim in the suit, then it cannot be decided under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. For the reliefs claimed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C., the entire plaint has to be read over to find out whether the suit as framed is barred in law for the time being in force. After reading the plaint, it seems that unless and until the merits of the claim are gone into, the issue of jurisdiction cannot be decided. The judgments relied to by the learned Counsel for the applicants are therefore not relevant to the facts and circumstance of the present case. 5. No fault can be found with the view taken by the trial Court. The Revision Application is, therefore, dismissed. 6. Needless to mention that any of the observations which are made on the merits of the matter, would not come in the way of the parties when the Court would decide the question on merits. JUDGE wwl