1 wp5489 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET WRIT PETITION NO.5489 OF 2011 ............................................................. Office Notes,Office memorandum of Coram, appearances,Court's Court's or orders or directions Judge's orders & Registrar's orders. ............................................................. Mr.A.H.Halai i/b Halai & Co. for the Petitioners None for the respondents CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 19,2011 P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. 1 The petition is taken up by this Court as the regular Court taking up writ petitions arising out of the orders passed under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,1999 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) is not available. 2 The petitioners are the obstructionists in the proceedings under Rule 97 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. The petitioners made an application at Exh.46. The first prayer in the said application was for cross examining 2 wp5489 the Secretary of the Decree Holder society on the basis of the certain statements made in the affidavit filed in the obstruction proceedings. The second prayer is for grant of permission to cross examine the Court Bailiff who noted the obstructionosts. By the impugned order, the Executing Court rejected the said application at Exh.46. A Revision application preferred by the petitioners for challenging the said order has been dismissed by the Appeal Bench of the Court of Small Causes. 3 It is apparent that the revision application under section 34 (4) of the said Act against the impugned order was not maintainable. 4 Final order passed on application under Rule 97 of Order XXI of the said Code has a force of decree which can be subjected to an Appeal. 5 The order impugned passed by the Court is purely interlocutory in 3 wp5489 nature. The said order is capable of being challenged in the Appeal which may be preferred by the petitioners against the final order passed by the Executing Court if the same be adverse to the petitioners. The petitioners will entitle to do so as the revision application preferred by them before the Appeal Bench was not maintainable. 6 Subject to what is observed above, no interference is called for. Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE