1 IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2862 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1091 OF 2008 Vishwanth J.Pandey .. Applicant V/s. Anil M.Narang & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.A.V.Anturkar i/b. Mr.J.M.Patil for the Appellant/Applicant. Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b. Lalit Jain for Respondent No.3. Mr.K.N.Kore for Respondent NO.4 to 7. Mr.Kumar Tolani i/b.Nankani & Association for Respondent. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : AUGUST 11TH, 2008. P.C. By the above Civil Application, the Applicant prays for the following relief : 2 Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Application hearing of R.A.E. Suit No. 1949 of 2003 in Court Room No.7, of Small Causes Court, Bombay may be kindly stayed. 2. The sum and substance of the relief is that the R.A.E. Suit No. 1949 of 2003 pending before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai be stayed. 3. The Applicant are the occupants of the premises in question, which premises are the subject matter of the suit for eviction. The Applicant had earlier filed an Inter pleader suit for a declaration as to who is the landlord of the premises occupied by him. The said Inter pleader suit resulted in the decree dated 24th July, 2006 being passed therein. The above First Appeal has been filed by Respondent No.1 challenging the said 3 decree. The First Appeal was admitted on 24th January, 2008. In the Civil Application filed by the Respondent No.1 being No.5641 of 2007, an order came to be passed by the learned single Judge of this Court (A.S.Oka, J.) on the said day that the suits pending in the Small Causes Court, Mumbai for eviction (one of which is against the Applicant above named) would have to be proceeded with as the learned Judge was of the view that the above First Appeal would be lying pending in this Court for a considerable period of time. The learned Judge has also observed that since remedies are available to the aggrieved parties against the decree passed, if any, in the said suits for eviction, the hearing of the said suits need not be detained for several years. 4. As mentioned above, the present Application is filed by the Applicant above named 4 who has not challenged the decree passed in the Inter-pleader suit. It is submitted by Shri A.V.Anturkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant that the prayer sought in Civil Application No.5634 of 2007 was restricted to the stay of the decree passed in the Inter-pleader suit and therefore the observations made by the learned Single Judge, in paragraph 5 of the said order are merely obiter as the said issue had not come directly for consideration before the learned Single Judge. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in the absence of an authoritative pronouncement as regards who is the landlord in respect of the premises in question, the Applicant should not be made to face the rigmarole of a full fledge Trial. Per contra, Shri Sanjay Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3 opposes the relief sought by way of the above Civil Application and submits that the Applicant does not have the locus to file the 5 instant application as he has not filed an Appeal challenging the decree passed in the Inter pleader suit. It is further submitted that the order dated 24th July, 2006 is a self contained order. 5. Having considered the rival contentions in my view, the observations made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in paragraph 5 of the said order, are made considering all the relevant facts, the said order is a self-contained order. The learned single Judge having once observed in the manner he has done as regards the said suits and having observed that hearing of the said suit cannot be detained, in the facts and circumstances as existing, in my view, it is not upon a for Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction to take a different view. The learned counsel for the Applicant Shri.Anturkar submitted that at least a rider should be added to the said order that in case the decree is passed by the Small Causes Court, the 6 same should not be executed pending the above First Appeal. As indicated above the said order of the learned Single Judge as contained in paragraph 5 is a self contained order. If decree is passed against either of the parties, it would be open for them to adopt such proceedings as are permissible in law to challenge the same. With the aforesaid observations, the Civil Application is rejected. 6. All the learned counsel are ad idem that the hearing of the above First Appeal and the companion Appeals be expedited. Accordingly, hearing of the First Appeals is expedited. 7. The parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Shirestedar of this Court. [R.M.SAVANT, J.] 7