2506wp2019.03.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETIITION NO. 2019 OF 2003 Chandrashekhar Sukhdeoji Dage and 7 others. : PETITIONERS -: Versus :- Shrikant Murlidhar Sharma and 6 others : RESPONDENTS ............................................................................................................................................................ Mr. P. Y. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent ............................................................................................................................................................ CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATED : 25th JUNE 2010. P. C. : 1. The petitioners, by this petition, challenge an order passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati dated 28/02/2003 below Exh. 37 in Regular Civil Suit No. 447 of 2001, thereby rejecting the application tendered by the petitioner-original defendant No. 1 requesting the Court to reject the plaint in exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent-original plaintiff instituted suit claiming declaration and perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff in the suit except in due course of law. It is averred in the suit that the plaintiff who inducted in possession on the strength of lease deed executed on 6/8/1998 and the period of lease was for 11 months. It is the contention of the original defendant No.1-petitioner herein, that on expiry of period of 2506wp2019.03.odt 2/2 lease prescribed in the lease deed, the cause of action to prosecute the suit does not survive and as such the plaint is liable to be rejected. The trial Court, on consideration the relevant circumstances, was pleased to turn down the application. 2. I have perused the application as well as the impugned order. I have also perused the plaint in regular civil suit No. 447 of 2001. It transpires that the plaintiff was in possession of the land on the basis of lease deed executed on 6/8/1998. Although the period of lease prescribed in the lease deed is for 11 months, the possession of the plaintiff cannot be disturbed without observing due procedure of law. Merely because the period prescribed in the document has expired, it cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint. In my opinion, the trial Court has rightly turned down the application. There is no substance in the petition. In exercise of powers vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this is not a fit case to cause interference in the instant petition. The writ petition is, therefore, rejected. The trial Court, however, is directed to decide the pending suit expeditiously. JUDGE wwl