1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1855/2010 M/s. Ranisati Oil Industries and another Vs. Kishor Oil Industries. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. J. T. Gilda, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.A. Kadu, Adv. for respondent no.1 Mr. S.L. Alaspurkar, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22nd JUNE 2010. 1] The contention of Advocate Gilda is that the suit, as filed by respondent no.1 vide Special Civil Suit No. 182/2005 is not maintainable and hence an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is already filed by the petitioner in that matter. Pending consideration of the said application, a direction under Order XV-A of the CPC has been issued by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, and the petitioner has been asked to deposit amount of Rs. 5000/- per month. That direction was questioned by the petitioners in MCA No.51/2008 before the District Judge-1, Amravati. The appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 34 (1) (b) with prayer to treat it as revision, in the alternative under Section 34(4) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is decided on 4.1.2010 by that Court and it has been dismissed. Learned counsel contends that in paragraph 6 of that judgment, issues have been framed and while 2 answering issue no.1 appeal is found to be not maintainable. In view of this direction, according to him, further findings recorded on merit in the matter are without jurisdiction and unsustainable, and therefore, he states that those observations need to be quashed and set aside and the question whether direction under Order XV-A of CPC could have been issued or not should be allowed to be decided by the trial Court. 2] Advocate Kadu for respondent no.1 (original plaintiff) points out that as rent has not been paid for long time, admitted amount has only been directed to be deposited. Hence, this Court should not interfere in writ jurisdiction. 3] Advocate Alaspurkar for respondent no.2 states that respondent no.2 has also to recover amounts for electricity supplied to the premises. He, therefore, states that disputes needs to be expedited. 4] The basic contention is about maintainability of the suit as filed. The application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is pending since long and respondent no.1 has also filed reply to it. In this situation, interest of justice can be met with by directing that Court to decide the said application at the earliest. During hearing, it has been pointed out to this Court application for not complying with direction under Order XV-A for striking of defence is already pending before the trial Court. Both the applications can be heard and decided together. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner states that direction to deposit rent amount should be quashed and set aside and at least may be stayed till the issue of jurisdiction is decided by the trial Court. As the amount of rent and arrears are is not in dispute, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. The aspect can be considered by the trial Court while deciding the application for striking of defence of the petitioner. Both application be considered by the trial Court, as early as possible and in any case by 31st July, 2010. It is made clear that trial Court will not influenced by observations made by Appellate Court in the matter in any way. 5] With this direction, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.