1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.68 OF 2009 Chaganlal J. Jain .. Applicant V/s. Ramsanehi G. Datta .. Respondent. Mr. Dharmes Sharma, i/b. Dharam & Co., for Applicant Mr. R.S. Maurya, for Respondent. CORAM: R.S.MOHITE, J. DATED: 11th AUGUST, 2009. P.C.: 1. This application is filed by the Original Defendant, impugning an order dated 12 th December, 2008 passed by the City Civil Court while deciding a preliminary issue of jurisdiction. By the impugned order, the trial court has held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the same is not barred under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act 1882. The Plaintiff has filed the suit bearing S.C. Suit No.3347 of 2007 in the City Civil Court for eviction of Defendant on the ground that the Srj 2 Plaintiff was the owner of the suit premises. It was his case that the Defendant was conducting a business of Metal Scrap shop, which came to an end by efflux of time. The Defendant had earlier filed a suit in the City Civil Court against the present Plaintiff for an injunction against dispossession from the suit premises on the ground that he was licensee of the present Plaintiff. The Plaint in that suit was returned on the ground that the City Civil Court had no Jurisdiction. 2. In view of the return of the plaint filed by the Defendant, subsequently, present Plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes for ejection of the Defendant, but after hearing both the parties, suit was dismissed for want of jurisdiction by holding that there was no relation of license between Plaintiff and the Defendant and the actual relation was of owner and the conductor. The present Defendant had not challenged the judicial finding and the decree of the Small Causes Court, therefore, admittedly become final. Thereafter, the present Plaintiff has filed the present suit, admitting the relation as owner and conductor and seeking erection on footing that the said relation has come to an end by efflux of time. Srj 3 3. In my view, as the issue of the existence of a license was earlier decided by a Judicial Pronouncement, which has become final, there is hardly any scope for leading any evidence. It cannot be said that there is any error of law in the reasoning and finding of the impugned order. 4. Hence, C.R.A. is rejected. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) Srj