1 WP No.8087/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8087 of 2010 Navinchandra Chimanlal Barot ... Petitioner versus (i) Smt.Minaxi, Widow of Mularaj (ii)Ashwin, Son of Mulraj Kapadia (iii)Bharat, Son of Mulraj Kapadia (iv)Mulraj Bhagwandas Kapadia (v)Chandrakant Jhatakia (vi)Bharat Jhatakia (vii)Arvind Jhatakia ... Respondents ... Mr. N.H. Shukla for the petitioner. Mr.Vishal Kanade i/b Mr.S.S. Gawde for respondent nos. 1to 3. Mr.N.J. Devashrayee for respondent nos.6 and 7. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 13th January 2011. P.C. 1. Rule. 2 WP No.8087/10 2. Mr.Kanade waives service for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Mr.Devashrayee waives service for respondent nos.6 and 7. Respondent no.5 is an alleged sub-tenant. Counsel states that he had not appeared in the suit. Hence issuance of a notice to him is dispensed with. Respondent no.4 is dead and hence no notice to him is necessary. 3. By consent, taken up for hearing forthwith. Respondent no.4 who was the original plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit. Respondent nos.1 to 3 made an application to bring themselves on record as heirs of deceased respondent no.4. The application was resisted by the present petitioners. By an order dated 30 September 2009, the trial court directed the enquiry to be held under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That order was successfully challenged by the respondent nos.1 to 3 by filing a revision before a Division Bench of the Small Cause Court. The order passed in revision is impugned by this petition. 4. The suit was filed under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The revision was preferred under section 34 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. In Laheribai J. Trivedi Vs. Dharamdatta V. Trivedi, 2010(1) Mh.L.J 597, this court has held that a revision under Order 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act would not lie in respect of purely procedural orders. The view has been followed by me in my decision dated 1 July 2010 (Narayan 3 WP No.8087/10 Lachmandas Mathreja Vs. M/s.Savanah Hospitality Pvt.Ltd, Writ Petition no.5725 of 2009 decided on 1 July 2010). The order to hold an enquiry to determine who are the legal representatives of the deceased is purely a procedural order. The Division Bench of the Small Causes Court did not have the powers of revision of a procedural order under Order 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. Consequently, the impugned order is required to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The order passed by the trial court is restored. 5. Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above with no order as to costs. (D.G.KARNIK, J)