1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6724 OF 2008 Concept Hotel Barons Ltd. ...Petitioners. v. Copper Chimney Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent. Mr.Tejesh Dande, adv. For the Petitioners. Mr.Rahul Narichania i/by M/s. Desai Desai Carrimjee and Mulla adv. For the Respondent. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 2nd February , 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 Respondent/Original Plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 306 of 2008 before the Small Causes Court under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act contending that the defendant/present petitioner had unlawfully dispossessed them without following the procedure of law. The defendant/present petitioner filed application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act contending that in view of the terms of the agreement, the matter needs to be referred to the arbitrator and could not be tried before the Small Causes Court and also raised question of jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act . 2 3 The learned 7th Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune framed certain issues as preliminary issues. One of the issues is about maintenability of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act before the Small Causes Court. Another issue as to whether the Small Causes Court has jurisdiction in view of the agreement between the parties to refer the dispute to the arbitration. Third issues is actually based on the merits of the case and the terms of the alleged agreement. Petitioner/defendant filed a Revision Application before the District Court challenging the framing of the issues. Revision Application was rejected on the ground that District Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the Revision Application. Against that, the petitioner came to this Court by filing this writ petition. 4 In view of the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure , revision application would lie before the High Court against any order passed by the subordinate court wherein no appeal lies. In fact, this writ petition could have been disposed off by merely relegating the petitioner to file revision application under Section 115. Taking into consideration the brief point involved in the matter, to avoid unnecessary litigation, this petition is treated as a Revision Application. 5 High Court may interfere if such subordinate Court appears 3 to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Admittedly, on the basis of an application by the present petitioner before the Trial Court, certain preliminary issues were framed and those issues and particularly, issue no.2, are about the jurisdiction. After the preliminary issues were framed, the learned Small Causes Court could hear the parties and take a decision on that. There is nothing on record to show that there was any illegality or material irregularity in the action of the Small Causes Court in framing the issues. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the present petition. 6 Taking into consideration the issues framed by the lower Court, in my considered opinion, lower Court may be advised to hear the parties first on issue no.2, which will not require recording of any evidence and if he finds that the suit before the small cause court is tenable under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act then he may proceed with the further issues. All the contentions of the parties are left open. 7 With the above observations, writ petition stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) 4