1 cra131.11.sxw ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.131 OF 2011 M/s. Meera Housing Pvt.Ltd. & ors. ..Applicants. Vs. Leelaram Sangitram Jagid & ors. ..Respondents. Mr. A.V.Anturkar, i/b. Sugandh Deshmukh, advocate for applicants. Mr. J. Reis with Vishal Thakar i/b. Priya Oswal, advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. DATE : MARCH 10, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2 By the present Petition, the Petitioners challenge the order impugned vide which the preliminary issue as to “whether the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit” has been decided and it has been held that the said court has jurisdiction. 2 cra131.11.sxw 3 Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed suit praying for declaration that Form No.32 dated 14 th October, 2005 filled in by the Defendant No.2 company is fraudulent, void, illegal and deserves to be cancelled. The plaintiffs have also prayed for direction to the Defendant No.1 to rectify and correct the record. The preliminary objection was filed by the present Petitioners who are Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.4 in the said suit that since the Plaintiffs are residing and since the Defendant No.2 having registered office within the territorial jurisdiction of Dindoshi Court, the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay would not have jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. The objection is rejected. Hence, the present Petition. 4 Mr. Anturkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the present petitioners submits that the learned trial Court has grossly erred in holding that it has jurisdiction when the entire cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court of Dindoshi. Mr. Reis, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents on the contrary submits that the learned trial Court by the reasoned order has rejected the preliminary objection and as such no interference is warranted. 3 cra131.11.sxw 5 Perusal of the plaint and the averments made therein would reveal that the Defendant No.1 i.e. The Registrar of Companies has been impleaded as party defendant in the said suit. Perusal of the prayer clauses would also reveal that specific relief is also claimed against the said defendant. It is not the case of the present Petitioners that the said defendant is not necessary or proper party to the suit. The present suit would governed by section 20(b) and (c) of the C.P.Code. Admittedly, office of the Respondent No.1 is situated in the Marine Lines area, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay. The plaintiffs have also pleaded about the cause of action against the Defendant No.1. The said cause of action has also arisen in the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay. In that view of the matter, no irregularity is noticed in the impugned order, so as to warrant interference. Hence,Revision Application is rejected. [ B.R.GAVAI, J ]