1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1356 OF 2008 Torrent Power Ltd. ...... ..... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...... ..... Respondents. -: ALONG WITH :- WRIT PETITION NO. 1357 OF 2008 Torrent Power Ltd. ...... ..... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...... ..... Respondents. Ms. Deepa Chavan i/by M/s. Little & Co., for the Petitioner. Mr. V. A. Sonpal, AGP for the Respondents. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and S. S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED : 17TH JUNE, 2008. P.C.: These writ petitions were filed with a novel prayer seeking declaration that respondent no.2, which is a Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhiwandi at Bhiwandi, should not exercise its jurisdiction in matters pertaining to theft of electricity. The petitioner company is a Distribution Franchisee and as such must be having disputes with its consumers and if a consumer approaches a Court the Distribution Company wants this Court, to 2 direct such court not to entertain any civil dispute against the Company. Obviously, this litigation is malicious. The petitioner also claims that Regular Suit Nos. 318 of 2007 and 396 of 2007 be quashed and the interim orders passed by the Court on 7th July, 2007 and 14th August, 2007 respectively should also be quashed. This is a very unusual prayer having been made in the writ petition as in terms of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure the civil courts have unlimited jurisdiction of entertaining a suit and if anybody feels that a civil court has entertained a suit without jurisdiction, he has remedy available to him under various laws and this Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot pass a blanket bar on the civil court to entertain suit against the petitioner company. Therefore, the writ petitions are misconceived and malicious and deserve to be rejected and dismissed. 2. This court, however, has passed an order on 1st April, 2008 giving certain directions to the Principal District Judge, Thane for consolidation and transfer of cases to one Civil Judge, Junior Division. We make it clear that it is for the concerned District Judge to make consolidation and transfer of cases of a particular company to a particular court if he administratively feels possible. We are told that these directions have been carried. Although there was no relief claimed as was granted by this Court but since the court felt perhaps it should be necessary to consolidate such cases it gave the direction, which is given. We, however, express our opinion that in case of civil suits 3 and in cases of application for injunction under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the civil courts must exercise their own jurisdiction, discretion and apply the law in their own wisdom irrespective of the fact that who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant in the suit. The law is well settled as to when a plaint can be rejected, when a suit can be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or when an injunction can be granted and when it cannot be granted. 3. In the circumstances, both the writ petitions are dismissed. 4. We make it clear that any suit in which the petitioner herein is the party before any court in this State, those suits shall be decided on their own turn. 5. This order shall be communicated to all the concerned courts. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (S. S. SHINDE, J.)