1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9410 OF 2009 Subhash Sadashiv Risbud .. Petitioner versus Smt.Leelatai N. Gokhale (since deceased) by legal representatives & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Subhash S. Risbud, petitioner in person. Mr.Kiran Jain i/by Kiran Jain & Co for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 4th February 2010. P.C: . Heard petitioner appearing in person and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner appearing in person is one of the two plaintiffs in a suit filed against the 1st to 3rd respondents. The 1st respondent is already dead. It appears that by carrying out amendment to the plaint, the 4th and 5th defendants were added as the legal representatives of the original 1st defendant-tenant. An application was made by the petitioner and other plaintiff at Exhibit 21 praying for a declaration that added 4th defendant be declared as the only tenant in respect of the suit premises and the name of 5th defendant be deleted. By order dated 31st January 2008, the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court held that the contention of the petitioner that the 4th defendant is only tenant cannot be accepted. However, an order was passed permitting deletion of defendant No.5. Thereafter, the petitioner and the other plaintiff filed an application purporting to be an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The prayer in the said application was for revoking earlier order dated 31st January 2008 and for declaring the defendant No.4 as the only tenant. The said application at Exhibit 51 was rejected by the trial Court. A revision application was 2 preferred against the said order by the plaintiffs. The revision application was rejected by the District Court. A review application made before the District Court has been also rejected. The petitioner appearing in person submits that the Court ought to have declared only the 4th defendant as a tenant so that at the time of final hearing of the suit, the Court could have considered the comparative hardship only of 4th defendant. He submitted that the impugned orders are erroneous. 2. After having heard the petitioner appearing in person, I find that the prayer made by the plaintiffs for declaring the 4th defendant as the only tenant was totally misconceived. The suit is yet to be decided finally. Pending the final hearing of the suit, the Court could not have decided as to whether the added 4th defendant was the only tenant. The said issue will have to be decided after the evidence is adduced in the suit. Therefore, though no interference is called for, it will have to be observed that the issue will be decided after evidence is adduced in the suit. Therefore, though no interference is called for, it is clarified that the observations made by the Courts below as regards the status of the 4th defendant are only tentative observations. At the time of final hearing of the suit, the trial Court will decide the issue regarding the status of the 4th defendant on the basis of evidence adduced without being influenced by the impugned orders. Subject to what is observed above, the writ petition is not entertained and the same is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)