1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 4022 of 2007 (Ajitkumar Krishnarao Mudholkar Vs. Radhamohan Badrilal Bajaj & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Chandurkar, Adv. For R-1. Mrs. S.S. Wandile, A.G.P. for R- 2 and 3. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 1 st December, 2008 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati, on 18/5/2007 in Revision Petition No. 1/ 2005-06 remanding the matter to the trial Court with a direction to decide the respondent no.1's application for grant of leave to defend before considering the merits of the matter. It appears from a copy of the Roznama that the matter was continuously listed before the trial Court for orders on the application for grant of leave to defend filed by 2 the respondent no.1. It further appears that the trial Court, in stead of deciding that application or passing any order thereon, decided the matter on merits and granted a decree in favour of the petitioner. It appears from the order passed by the trial Court that the trial Court, in stead of first deciding the application for grant of leave to defend, decided the same along with the main matter. This course was not open to the trial Court as the matter was fixed before the trial Court on a number of occasions for hearing and necessary orders on the application for grant of leave to defend. Since the action on the part of the trial Court was apparently incorrect, the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, rightly set aside the order of the trial Court and remanded the matter to the trial Court to decide the application of respondent for grant of leave to defend before passing any final order on the merits of the matter. The impugned order does not suffer from any error muchless a jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the same in exercise of 3 the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP