1 (WP1981/11) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1981 OF 2011 Kamleshsingh Harnamsingh Chowhan .... Petitioner. V/s Ratilal Bhagwandas .... Respondent. Mr. Vivek Kantawala with Ms. Sneha Nanondkar and Bhairavi Wavdevekar for the Petitioner. Mrs. Snehal Modi for the Respondent. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 25th April, 2011 P.C.:- 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4/2/2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court in Revision Application filed by the Respondent herein. 2. Brief facts are as under:- 3. Petitioner is the original Plaintiff who has filed a suit against the Defendant for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement and also on the ground that the Defendant had acquired suitable alternate accommodation. In the said 2 (WP1981/11) suit, initially, Written Statement was filed. Thereafter, application for amendment of the Written Statement was filed which was rejected by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, Revision Application was preferred by the Respondent/Defendant before the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court. The Division Bench admitted the Revision Application and granted stay to the hearing of the suit. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner had raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the Revision Application against the interlocutory order passed by the Trial Court. It is submitted that since it was a procedural order, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Sukhdev Prasad Raghubir vs. Rambhujarat Kshampati1 the revision application was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed on that ground. It is submitted that the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court, however, without taking into consideration the preliminary objection, was pleased to admit the Revision Application and granted stay to the hearing of the suit. It is submitted that the order of stay which is granted by the Revisional Court may be set aside. 5. In my view, at this stage, it will not be possible to vacate the interim stay which has been granted by the 1 1983 Mh.L.J. 9 3 (WP1981/11) Revisional Court. However, in my view, Revisional Court ought to have first decided the preliminary objection which was raised by the Petitioner herein regarding maintainability of the Revision Application and should not have relegated this issue till the final hearing of the Revision Application. In this view of the matter, at this stage, it is not possible to interfere with the order passed by the Revisional Court granting stay. Revisional Court is however directed to decide the question of maintainability of Revision Application first and if it comes to the conclusion that the Revision Application is maintainable then the Revision Application may be decided as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, on or before 15th July, 2011. Revisional Court shall not be influenced by any observation made by this Court while disposing this Writ Petition. All contentions of both the parties are kept open. 6. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 4 (WP1981/11)