WP. 3362-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 3362 OF 2010 Ashok Ramchandra Joshi ...Petitioner Vs. R. G. Kandpile & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mr. C. S. Joshi, for the Petitioner. Mr. A. S. Khandeparkar i/b M/s. Khandeparkar and Associates, for the Respondent No.1. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : JULY 6, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 2. Brief facts of this case in nutshell are as under- . The petitioner initially had filed a suit in the City Civil Court seeking possession of the suit premises under Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act. A preliminary objection was raised regarding maintainability of the suit in the City Civil Court. Hence, a preliminary WP. 3362-10 - 2 - issue was framed, and the City Civil Court came to a conclusion that the suit was not maintainable in the said Court and therefore, passed the order, returning the plaint to the petitioner for its presentation before the appropriate court. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein preferred the petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned Single Judge of this Court, however, by its order dated 12th March, 1993 refused to entertain the writ petition while exercising its jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Thereafter, the petitioner presented the plaint in the Small Causes Court. The Small Causes Court came to the conclusion that petitioner was not in possession of the premises. Against this order, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court. This appeal was also dismissed. Against the said dismissal order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that entire orders passed by the Small Causes Court are illegal and without jurisdiction. It is submitted that a suit filed under Section 5 of the Specific Relief Act for possession is maintainable only in the City Civil Court. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Secondly, it was submitted that both the courts below did not WP. 3362-10 - 3 - take into consideration the Commissioner’s report which was submitted in the City Civil Court in which it is clearly stated that respondent had dispossessed the petitioner herein. 5. In my view, the said said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. So far as first submission regarding jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court in entertaining the said plaint is concerned, it is not open for the petitioner to raise this contention since he presented the said plaint in the Small Causes Court; secondly, the order passed by the City Civil Court, returning the plaint was confirmed by this Court and the said order has become final. So far as submission regarding the Commissioner’s report is concerned, it is not possible to re-appreciate the evidence while exercising limited jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Since both the courts below have after appreciating the evidence on record have held that petitioner was not in possession of the suit premises, hence, it is not possible to interfere with the said concurrent finding recorded by the courts below. Therefore, Civil Writ Petition is dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]