(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 7365 of 2008 Shri Sukalal s/o. Punju Powar, Age : 71 years, Occupation : Pensioner, R/o. Thakur Building, .. Petitioner Gangaram Plots, (Original Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. appellant) versus Shri Dilipsing Baktawarsing Thakur, Age : 58 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Thakur Building, Gangaram Plots, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. .. Respondent. .................. Mr. Swapnil S. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate, for the respondent. .................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 7TH JULY 2009. (2) COURT’S ORDER : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the concurrent orders passed by the trial court and the appellate court i.e. the order dated 25th October 2007, passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhusawal, below Exhibit 1 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 19/2007, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for restoration of Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 56/1992 for fixation of standard rent, and the order dated 4th August 2008, passed by the learned District Judge-2, Jalgaon, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 69/2007, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner. 3. Mr. S.S. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the respondent landlord had filed four suits for eviction against the co-tenants i.e. Regular Civil Suit Nos. 185, 186, 187 and 188 of 1994. He submits that the suit against the present petitioner was Regular Civil Suit No. 188/1994. He, however, submits that the Miscellaneous Civil Application filed by the present petitioner was wrongly tagged along with Regular Civil Suit No. 185/1994, which was not against the present petitioner. He submits that the suit filed against the present petitioner was dismissed in default in the year 2004 itself. It is, therefore, submitted that there was no occasion for the petitioner to come to know about the dismissal of the application filed by the present petitioner. As such, the application filed by the present petitioner ought to have been restored. (3) 4. Mr. C.K. Shinde, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that both the courts have concurrently held that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for restoration of the application filed by him and, as such, no interference is warranted in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. 5. No doubt, that the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent is right in contending that the scope of interference into concurrent findings of fact is very limited. However, in the peculiar facts of the case, I find that the petitioner has made out a case for interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. 6. As already stated herein above, it could be seen that the respondent landlord had filed four suits against the co-tenants. In so far as application filed by the present petitioner for determination of standard rent i.e. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 56/1992, is concerned, it can clearly be seen from Rozanama, that it was wrongly tagged along with Regular Civil Suit No. 185/1994. From the Rozanama, it is clear that since Civil Miscellaneous Application filed by the present petitioner was wrongly tagged with the suit filed by the respondent landlord against some other tenant, he could not prosecute the application for bona fide reasons. It is also pertinent to note that the suit filed against the present petitioner i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 188/1994 was dismissed in default in the year 2004 itself. The said suit has been restored at the instance of the present respondent landlord in the year 2007. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, I find that the courts below have erred in rejecting the application filed by the present (4) petitioner and dismissing the appeal. 7. I find that it will be in the interest of justice, that the Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 56/1992, filed by the present petitioner, is heard on merits along with the suit filed by the respondent landlord against the present petitioner i.e. Regular Civil Suit No. 188/1994. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. (i) The order dated 25th October 2007, passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhusawal, below Exhibit 1 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 19/2007, so also, the order dated 4th August 2008, passed by the learned District Judge-2, Jalgaon, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 69/2007, are quashed and set aside. (ii) Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 56/1992, filed by the present petitioner, is restored to file and the same is directed to be heard along with Regular Civil Suit No. 188/1994 filed by the respondent landlord. (iii) However, this shall be subject to costs which are quantified at Rs. 1,000/- [Rupees one thousand]. The petitioner shall deposit the costs in the trial court within a period of four weeks from today. On deposit of the costs, the respondent landlord shall be at liberty to withdraw the same. (iv) It is made clear that on failure to deposit the costs within the stipulated period, as aforesaid, the petition shall stand dismissed and the (5) impugned orders shall stand revived, automatically. 9. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... bgp/wp7365