spb/- 1 cra937-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 937 OF 2010 Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., ... Applicant. Vs. Smt. Sampada Milind Kardage ... Respondent. --- Mr. Avinash B. Avhad for the Applicant. Mr. Surel S. Shah for the Respondent. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 24th NOVEMBER, 2010. P.C. 1 In a suit (R.C.Suit No.22/2010 filed in the court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Kolhapur) the respondent (original defendant) made an application for framing a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction. Vide order dated 12th of March, 2010, the learned trial Judge rejected the application. That order is impugned in this Revision Application. 2 Learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Revision Application on the ground that even if the revision application is allowed then only a preliminary issue would be framed and that could not dispose of the suit. Hence, the Revision Application is not maintainable in view of the amended section 115 of the spb/- 2 cra937-10.sxw Code of Civil Procedure. 3 In the case of Rajabhau Mahadeorao Rahate vs. Dinkar Shantaram Ingole, reported in 2002 (3) Mh.L.J.921 this court has held that the revision application would not be maintainable unless the suit is likely to be disposed of by allowing the revision. Consequently, this Revision Application is not maintainable. 4 Learned counsel for the revision applicant, however, submits that while rejecting the application for framing a preliminary issue, the learned joint Civil Judge, Jr.Dvn. has observed that it has jurisdiction. Such a finding obviously would not have been recorded by the learned Civil Judge while considering the application whether the issue regarding jurisdiction should at all be framed and tried as preliminary issue. That would amount to framing of an issue and deciding it on merits. Hence, the observations made by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, regarding it having jurisdiction or not while deciding the application for framing of a preliminary issue are uncalled for. It is, therefore, clarified that at the time of deciding the suit, the learned Jt. Civil Judge shall not in any way be influenced by any of the observations made by it in its order dated 12th March, 2010, regarding it having jurisdiction to try the spb/- 3 cra937-10.sxw suit. 5 With this observation, the Revision Application is disposed of. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]