1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRA No. 40/2010 Adv. Pallavi w/o Abhijit Mahashabde Vs. Milind s/o Balaji Gandhi and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. D.M. Upadyay, Adv. for the applicant. Mr. Khapre, Advocate for the respondent no.1 CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 7th JUNE 2010. Heard. 1. The applicant feels aggrieved by the rejection of the application in terms of Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure below Exhibit 59 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1175/2006 dated 3rd March, 2010. 2. Even without adverting to the merits of the contentions raised by the present applicant, the fact remains, identical application was moved by the Municipal Corporation before the learned Judge below Exhibit 48 and by order dated 13.11.2009, it was dismissed/rejected by learned Judge. The same was tested by the present petitioner Smt. Pallavi in Writ Petition No. 4404/2009 and faced dismissal of the said writ petition. Consequently, it was not open for the present petitioner to re-agitate the same by filing Exhibit 2 59 or by present proceedings. Scope of Civil Revision Application is a very limited. I do not find any material irregularity or illegality on the part of learned Judge in not entertaining the request of the present applicant being original defendant no.2. The contention of jurisdiction in terms of Section 149 of M.R.T. P. Act could have been raised by the Corporation and it was so raised in terms of Exhibit 18, as the learned Judge has dealt with the same. The same avenues need not be entertained at the whims and fancies on behalf of the applicant. The learned Judge, in the light of the pleadings, may frame a issue in relation to jurisdiction. C.R.A. lacks merit, dismissed. No costs. (K.U. Chandiwal ) JUDGE Ambulkar.