FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WP/253/2010 SUDHIR V/S NAVIN 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is defendant No.1 in RCS No.66 of 2005. Copy of plaint at Exhibit “A” shows that the shop property is subject matter of the suit. The suit is for possession of the suit property and damages for user of the suit property. In paragraph No.2 of the plaint, it has been stated that Prataprao and Prabhodhini Borawake were the erstwhile owners of the property. Plaintiff purchased the property from them by registered sale deed. One Babulal Shah was the tenant in the suit property. Along with said Babulal, defendant No.1 in the suit was carrying out business. After demise of Baburao, defendant No.1 used to make payment of rent to erstwhile owners. According to the plaintiff, therefore, relationship of landlord and tenant was amongst the Borawake and defendant No.1. Said Borawake sold the property to plaintiff. Notice of attornment was issued by plaintiff to defendant No.1 informing that the plaintiff has acquired ownership of the suit property. Notice terminating tenancy and requesting payment of rent was also issued. The suit was filed on 28.3.2005. 3. Defendant, after service, entered appearance and filed written statement. The trial Court consolidated the issues at Exhibit 20 – Exhibit “B” to the petition. This consolidation of issues was done by the trial Court on 29.9.2008. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application Exhibit “C” on 16.9.2009 seeking preferential hearing of the suit on issue No.1A. This prayer was rejected by the trial Court while passing order below Exhibit 82 on 1.10.2009. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal. I have given anxious consideration to the said submission. The trial Court has recorded a finding in paragraph No.7 of the order that issue Nos.1A and 2 would be decided along with other issues on merits. Preferential hearing of issues, as sought by the petitioners, in fact, is not contemplated under any of the statutory provisions. I see no perversity in the impugned order so also there is no jurisdictional error. 5. In the result, Writ Petition stands dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. Dt.2.2.2010 (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.) akl