1 AO 1163/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1163 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Padgaonkar with Mr. F.N. Puri i/b Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe for the appellants. Mr. Anil Singh i/b Mr. D.R. Shah for the respondents. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 20TH DECEMBER 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. No case is made out for interference in the order passed by the trial Court. The appellants claim to be the tenants. By the impugned order, the trial Court has only directed them not to dispose of the suit premises till the disposal of the suit. The order 2 AO 1163/10 is imminently a just order and prevents the appellants from creating any third party interest during the pendency of the suit. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the reply the appellants (defendants) had raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court and therefore the trial Court should not have granted injunction without deciding the issue of jurisdiction. In the trial Court the respondents (plaintiffs) had stated that in view of the injunction which was granted in favour of the appellants by the Small Causes Court in another suit they were not pressing prayer (a) of the motion. As such, there was really no contest regarding the motion. As and when the issues are framed, the appellants may apply for treating the issue regarding jurisdiction, if framed, to be the preliminary issue. If such an application is made, the trial Court shall consider it on its own merits. 3 AO 1163/10 4. With these observations, the appeal is disposed off. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)