-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.3634 of 2007 Suresh Dalichand Solanki ...Petitioner vs. Jeevan Maadev Gorade and ors. ...Respondents Shri R.V.Govilkar for petitioner Shri J.S.Kini for respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 7th January, 2008 7th January, 2008 7th January, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. After hearing the parties, in my view there is no need to interfere with the order under challenge as it is interlocutory. That apart, the apprehension of the present petitioner that he will not be allowed to raise the plea before the lower Appellate Court, that the respondents are disentitled from recovering possession of the suit premises, is misplaced. If there are other tenants in the property and there are suits filed against them by the landlords and the landlords have either succeeded or not succeeded, then, the landlords not disputing these facts clearly, means that the petitioner can raise such pleas. Further, Shri Kini, on instructions, makes a statement that there is no -2- need to amend the pleadings as the respondents will not raise a plea that the petitioners are precluded from urging as above merely because the plaint is not amended. In other words, even if the plaint is not amended, the petitioner can raise appropriate pleas with regard to the decrees in the case of other tenants. In the light of this statement, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order as it will take care of all apprehensions of the petitioner. Petition is dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)