- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 575 OF 2007 Jai Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. ... Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Indu Shankar Landge & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. S. S. Kanetkar, for petitioner. Mr. S. A. Sawant, for respondent No.1. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : JUNE 19, 2009. PC :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff petitioner is original defendant No. 2 and respondent No 2 is original defendant No.1. The respondent No.1 filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 344 of 2007 in the Civil Court, Senior Division Pune, for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner, and respondent No. 2 herein. In the said suit petitioner filed application under Order 7, Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint. Said application was rejected and hence, the present revision. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute that the petitioner is landlord and respondent - 2 - No.1 is tenant of the suit premises. Under prayer (b) of the suit, respondent No.1 has claimed injunction, restraining the petitioner from evicting her from the suit property; under prayer (c) of the suit, respondent No.1 has claimed injunction restraining the petitioner from entering into any transaction in respect of the suit property which would affect or take away her right as tenant therein. He further submitted that suit between landlord and the tenant, relating to recovery of possession, is required to be filed before the Small Causes Court and Civil Court has no jurisdiction. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 invited my attention to prayer Clause (a) of the suit, under which declaration is sought that construction in the suit premises is legal. He also pointed out that the prayer clause (b) of the suit is not only against the petitioner but also against the respondent No.2 and therefore, these prayers cannot be adjudicated by the Small Causes Court. 4. Having heard the leaned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the revision alongwith annexure thereto, including the impugned order, I do not find any merit in the revision. By virtue of prayer Clause (a) of the suit, respondent No.1 has claimed declaration that construction on the suit property is legal and valid. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that this prayer cannot be entertained by the Small Causes Court and the same can be entertained only by the Civil Court. - 3 - Under prayer Clause (b) of the suit, the respondent No.1 has claimed injunction against the petitioner and respondent No.2 both, restraining them from evicting her from the suit premises. Had the respondent no.1 claimed injunction only against petitioner, suit could not have been entertained by the Civil Court. However, relief of injunction is claimed against respondent No.2 also which can only be entertained by the Civil Court. Under prayer Clause (c), the respondent No.1 has claimed permanent injunction restraining petitioner from entertaining into any transaction in respect of suit property in violation of her right in the same as tenant. I find prima facie some substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that prayer (c) of the suit cannot be entertained by the Civil Court. However, in my view, the plaint cannot be rejected in part. The petitioner is always at liberty to argue before the Civil Court at the time of final hearing that the relief claimed in prayer (c) cannot be entertained for want of jurisdiction, and there is no need to entertain petitioner’s application under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the revision in my jurisdiction under section 115 of C.P.C. and the same is accordingly rejected. Sd/- [ R. V. MORE, J.]