1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7343 OF 2009 Perfect Communications Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioner vs. Cavim Hospitality Services Pvt.Ltd. ...Respondent Mr.Virendra Tulzapurkar, Sr.Advocate i/b AZB & Partners for the petitioner Shri P.K.Dhakephalkar,Sr.Advocate with Mr.Subhash Jadhav and Ms Renu Parlikar for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. In a suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff in the court of Small Causes for possession of the suit premises, an application claiming various interim reliefs was made by the petitioners. Various prayers were made in the application including the prayer for temporary injunction. Another prayer was made for seeking a direction against the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,16,99,473/- A prayer was also made seeking a direction against the petitioner to deposit certain amount every month. 2 In the reply to the said application, the respondent raised an issue of jurisdiction. By the order impugned dated 17th April 2009, the learned Judge of the court of Small Causes has granted a limited ad- interim relief restraining the respondent-defendant from parting with possession of the suit premises or creating any third party interests. The said order was passed under section 9(A) (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 2 1908 by directing that the ad-interim relief will operate till the decision of preliminary issue framed under section 9(A). 3 The grievance of the petitioner is that interim application can be heard finally only after preliminary issue is decided and till then the respondent cannot be allowed to remain in possession without depositing any amount. It is contended that the prayers made in that behalf ought to have been considered by the trial court by granting ad-interim relief pending the decision of the preliminary issue. 4 The order impugned is an ad-interim order. The issue of jurisdiction has already been framed which will have to be decided as a preliminary issue in view of section 9A of the said Code. A limited protection has been granted by the trial court in favour of the petitioner till the decision of the preliminary issue. Other reliefs can be considered only after preliminary issue is decided in favour of the petitioner. 4 A grievance is made about certain observations made by the trial court in the impugned order. The order impugned is an ad-interim order. When occasion for hearing interim application arises, the trial court will not be influenced by the impugned order and the said application will be decided on its own merits. 5 Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. Hearing on preliminary issued be concluded expeditiously. JUDGE