1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2593 OF 2010 Yashwant Ramchandra Gujar. .. Petitioner Vs. Sunil Sampatrao Rajdeo & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri Nitin Mulye for the Petitioner. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 6TH APRIL, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is the 5th Defendant in a suit filed by the 1st and the 2nd Respondents. An application was made by the Petitioner at Exhibit-74 contending that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and that there was no cause of action to file the suit. By the impugned order, the said application was rejected. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the issues raised by the Petitioner in the application at Exhibit-74 go to the root of the matter and without considering the merits, the application has been rejected. 3. I have considered the submissions. In the Paragraph 3 of the 2 impugned order, the learned Trial Court has observed thus: - “.....Out of the above objections, defendants have taken some of the objections in their written statement and considering rival pleadings, the issues are framed. Defendants have ample opportunity to bring the necessary evidence on record during the trial in respect of their objection and to submit upon it at the time of final argument. None of the objections, mentioned in the application, are relating to the jurisdiction. The application is silent as to under which provision of law the jurisdiction of Court is barred for entertaining this suit and the objection in the application about cause of action is also vague upon which no order can be passed at this stage. Therefore, considering all above facts and circumstances the application filed by the defendants appears to be devoid of substance and it appears that the application is filed only with a view to delay the matter.” 4. On plain reading of the impugned order, it is crystal clear that the issues raised by the Petitioner have not been decided by the learned Trial Judge. In fact, the said issues have been expressly kept open which may be agitated at the time of final hearing of the suit. As the contentions raised by the Petitioner have been kept open, no case for interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. 5. Subject to what is observed above, the Writ Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J)