*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3515/2009 Gupta Saroj Kumar. ..Petitioner -VERSUS- The Chairman & Managing Director, and Reviewing Authority and others. ..Respondents ............... Mr.A.P.Vanarse, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Ashok D. Shetty & Ms.Heena Mistry Thorat, Advocate for the Respondents. ............... CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. Dated 23rd November, 2009. PC:- 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2 The present Petitioner who was an employee of the Respondent Bank instituted a suit calling in question the legality and validity of the order of termination/removal. Besides the said relief, some other reliefs are also claimed. The suit came to be filed at Pune. The Respondent-Defendant filed an application at Exhibit-14 challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Pune to entertain and try the suit and hence, prayed for rejection of the plaint under Order-7 Rule-11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Trial Court tried the said question as a preliminary issue and recorded the finding that the Court at Pune has jurisdiction to try the suit. The said order is passed by the Trial Court on 14.09.2007. Till date the said order holding that the Court at Pune has *2* jurisdiction to try the suit has not been challenged by the Respondents/ Defendants, so it can be said that the said question has attained finality. Without there being any application either in the form of review or otherwise, in the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Trial Court suo-motu took up the same issue for consideration which was adjudicated by the predecessor in office of the Presiding Officer vide order dated 14.09.2007. 3 My attention is invited to the impugned order dated 03.12.2008. I prefer to reproduce the order passed by the Trial Court dated 03.12.2008 which reads thus:- “No doubt my predecessor has decided the point of jurisdiction on 14.09.2007, but if there is mistake on law point, while passing order, hence, Court can be reviewed its own order. I hereby asked both sides to argue on the point of territory jurisdiction of this Court.” 4 I am informed that despite the order dated 03.12.2008 the Court has yet not heard the parties and no order has been passed touching the jurisdiction of the Court, possibly in view of the pendency of Writ Petition. The impugned order dated 03.12.2008 unnecessarily goes to reopen an issue, which is already adjudicated by the Trial Court, without there being any application moved by any of the parties. 5 According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Trial Court has suo-motu passed the impugned order and called upon both the parties to argue on the point of territorial jurisdiction of the Court. *3* 6 Needless to mention that the party aggrieved by the order dated 14.09.2007 has a remedy before a different forum and the Trial Court itself ought not to have called upon the parties to address on the concluded issue, more so, when no one asked for the same. The learned counsel for the Petitioner is justified in contending that the Trial Court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law in ordering rehearing of the point which is already concluded. 7 The learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that an opportunity may be granted to the Respondents/ Defendants to challenge the order dated 14.09.2007. 8 The Respondents have chosen not to challenge the order till date, however, if the Respondents are so advised, it shall be open for the Respondents to move the appropriate Court by taking recourse to available remedy and for that no liberty from this Court is needed. 9 In that view of the matter, I am of the clear view that the impugned order dated 03.12.2008 is without jurisdiction. In the result, the impugned order dated 03.12.2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune is quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of. Rule made absolute in the above terms. (A.P. Deshpande, J)