1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4145/2007 Hrudaykumar Babulal Parate vs. Mohan Sitaram Kumare and others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P.LAVANDE, J DATE : 17.7.2008 Heard Mr. Kendurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.V.Vaidya, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By this petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 14.10.2004 passed by the 8th Joint Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 1909/92 and order dated 16.12.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 383/04. 3. The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1909/92 claiming himself to be the landlord seeking possession and arrears of rent. The respondents denied the tenancy vis-a-vis the petitioner. Issues were framed and the trial court passed order deciding preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction of the court to try the suit. The same was decided in favour of the respondents and the trial court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. According to Mr. Kendurkar, on the same day the trial court passed another order returning the plaint for proper presentation to the proper Court under Order VII, Rule 10 of C.P.C.. The petitioner preferred above appeal to the 2` District Court challenging the only order by which the trial court has returned the plaint for proper presentation before the appropriate forum. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal holding in favour of the respondents. 4. At the outset, Mr. Vaidya for respondents submitted that the trial court had passed two orders and the petitioner had challenged only one order by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 383/04 before the appellate court and second order by which the court held that it has no jurisdiction has not been challenged and as such has become final. 5. Mr. Kendurkar submitted that by the present petition the petitioner challenges the appellate order and the order dated 14.10.2004 passed by the trial court by which the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper court. Mr. Kendurkar submitted that he may be permitted to produce the copy of the order passed under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I am not inclined to accept this request at this late stage. 6. At the outset it may be mentioned that the order passed by the trial court returning the plaint has not been annexed. Moreover, in the memo of petition it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner is challenging the order dated 14.10.2004 by which the court held that it had no jurisdiction. Therefore, Mr. Vaidya is right in saying that the petitioner having not challenged the said order passed by the trial court returning the plaint and as such question of allowing writ petition against the order passed by the appellate court does 3` not arise. 7. Even if the argument of Mr. Kendurkar for the petitioner that the petitioner assails the order dated 14.10.2004 by which it returned the plaint is accepted I am not inclined to entertain this challenge after the appellate Court decided the appeal against the order passed by the trial Court holding that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. In view of the above I find no merit in the present petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge patle