1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1519 OF 2009 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1211 OF 2009 WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1211 OF 2009 Narendra Bhalchandra Phatarpekar .. Applicant Versus. Bhalchandra N. Phatarpekar (deceased) and others .. Respondents Mr. E. R. Naik and Varsha Shinde, for the applicant CORAM:- MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED : 11 th January, 2010 P.C. 1. This appeal is taken out challenging the order dated 14 th September, 2009, allowing the chamber summons for bringing legal heirs of original dependent no.1 on record who died on 7.10.2007. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is challenging the order on the basis that there 2 was delay of 627 days in filing the chamber summons. However, without any application for condonation of delay, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court has allowed the Chamber Summons for bringing the legal heirs on record. It is submitted that the action of condoning the delay without any separate application was an action without jurisdiction. Trial court cannot exercise jurisdiction which is not vested in it by law. In support of his application, he relied on the ruling of the Bombay high Court in Ballumal A. Jaisingh Vs. M/s J.J. Builders ( 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 238). 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 ( original complainant-landlord) submits that this AO is not maintainable as the order of the chamber summons was made under order XXII Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code and the appeal is no maintainable against such order. 3. No appeal lies against the order under order XXII Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, considering the provisions under Order XLII, Rule 1(k) and (l), and section 104 of the Civil 3 Procedure Code. Hence the present appeal is not maintainable. 4. In the result, both, the application for stay and the appeal are disposed of as not maintainable. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) jpc/-