1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8668 OF 2009 M/s.Shah Associates ...Petitioners vs. Mrs.Tehmi S. Khodaiji ...Respondent Mr.Madhav Jamdar for the petitioner Mr.B.K.Raje for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JANUARY 15, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. In view of the decisions of this Court in the case of J.M.Constructions Vs. Rustom P.Patel (Dr.) & Ors. [2008 (5) Bombay Cases Reporter 598] and in the case of Mrs.Laheribai J.Trivedi Vs. Dharamdatta V.Trivedi and others (delivered in Writ Petition No.3926 of 2008 on 8 th October 2009), the learned counsel for the respondent states that the revision application before the Appellate Bench of Court of Small Causes was not maintainable. He states that a liberty may be granted to challenge the order dated 29 th April 2008 passed by the trial Court by filing the appropriate proceedings. 2 The request is reasonable and the same deserves to be accepted. Hence, the Petition is disposed of by passing the following order : i) Impugned Judgment and Order dated 4 th May 2009 passed in Revision Application No.172 of 2008 is quashed and set aside and the said Revision 2 Application is dismissed as not maintainable. ii)It will be open for the respondent to challenge the order dated 29 th April 2008 passed by the trial Court by filing appropriate proceedings as the Revision Application has been dismissed only on the ground that the same is not maintainable. iii)The learned counsel for the respondent prays that to enable the respondent to adopt appropriate proceedings, the trial may not proceed for a period of four weeks from today. The said prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. iv)Considering the fact that a wrong remedy was availed of by the respondent, the trial will not proceed for a period of four weeks from today. JUDGE