1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No. 269 of 2009 IN Writ Petition No. 2480 of 2009 [decided] [Sunil Maniklal Sawal & ors. Vs. Girischandra K. Choube] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. B.N. Mohta, Adv., for the appellants. Mr. Nitin Vyawahare, Adv., for respondent sole. ----- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 31st July, 2009. 1. Heard. 2. The present appellants question order dated 15 th June, 2009 passed by learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge found that suit filed by present respondent was for a decree of possession on the basis of title, and present appellants had denied that title while replying in Regular Civil Suit No. 1806 of 1993. There, present appellants contended that they were not the tenants of respondent. Learned Adv. Mr. Mohata has contended that plaint, as filed, shows that it is instituted by pointing out forfeiture of title as cause of action. He further states that Court fee paid is also as if it is a suit by landlord against tenant, and not 2 on the basis of market value. According to him, therefore, because of both these factors, namely [1] that the suit is based on forfeiture of title, and [2] non-valuation of suit claim on the basis of market value and payment of court fee as if filed by landlord against tenant, the Small Cause Court can go into controversy and it alone has got jurisdiction. He, therefore, states that Civil Court, before which suit is filed, does not possess that jurisdiction. He further adds that even if question of title arises incidentally, the same can be considered by a Small Cause Court. 3. We have perused the records and also the impugned order. We find that as the title of respondent was denied, he has filed a suit before regular Civil Court, pointing out his title and forfeiture has been referred to as indication of denial of title. The incorrect or wrong valuation [if any] of said suit cannot be the reason to conclude that suit is not on the basis of title. Thus, we do not find any error in the Judgment of learned Single Judge. Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 4. Adv. Mr. Mohata states that this Court has already granted interim relief and that should be continued. 5. Adv. Mr. Vyawahare points out that suit is posted for evidence and hence there is no 3 question of immediate dispossession. 6. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to continue any interim orders. Judge Judge |Hedau| 4