ash 1 cra-1002,1003n1004.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1002 OF 2010 Jai Nagar co-operative Housing Society Limited. .. Applicant Vs Amin Amirali Somji & Anr. .. Respondents -- WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1003 OF 2010 Jai Nagar co-operative Housing Society Limited. .. Applicant Vs Sunil Shantilal Shetiya & Anr. .. Respondents -- WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1004 OF 2010 Jai Nagar co-operative Housing Society Limited. .. Applicant Vs Sanjay Balkrishna Boob & Anr. .. Respondents -- Shri Aditya Bapat i/by Shri Suhas Deokar for the applicant in all the applications. Ms Manjiri Parasnis for Respondent No.1 in all the applications. -- CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 28TH FEBRUARY, 2011 ash 2 cra-1002,1003n1004.10 P.C. . Learned counsel appearing for the Revision Applicant on instructions of the Applicant states that the challenge in the revision applications is confined to the order dated 16th September, 2010 passed by the Trial Court on an application made by the revision applicant for rejection of the plaint by invoking Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Heard learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent ( Original Plaintiff ). 2. Considering the narrow controversy involved, the revision applications are taken up for final disposal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the revision applications. The order impugned has been passed on an application for rejection of the plaint. If revision applications are allowed by allowing the applications for rejection of the plaint, the same will amount to final disposal of the main proceedings. Hence, revision applications are maintainable. The prayer in the applications made by the revision applicant was for rejection of the plaint in exercise of power under Rule 11 of Order VII of the said Code. Prayer for rejection of the plaint was required to considered only on the basis of the averments made in the plaint. On that application, there was no ash 3 cra-1002,1003n1004.10 occasion for the Learned Trial Judge to frame a preliminary issue. The application praying for rejection of the plaint will have to be decided on its own merits and the Court need not frame any issue on the basis of the said application. Only on the ground that the application made by the revision applicant has not been considered on merits, the impugned order dated 16th September, 2010 will have to be set aside. 4. Hence, the revision applications are disposed of by passing the following order. ORDER (a) The impugned order dated 16th September, 2010 is quashed and set aside and the learned Trial Judge is directed to decide the applications made by the revision applicant praying for rejection of the plaint in accordance with law. The Applications shall be decided expeditiously. (b) All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. ( A.S. OKA, J )