1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2177 OF 2009 Vivek Dashrath Mandekar ...Petitioner vs. Pandharinath Rambhau Mohol ...Respondent Ms Pallavi Dabholkar for the petitioner None for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 2, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. On 28th July 2009, this Court Court issued notice for final disposal at admission stage. Office noting shows that the notice has been duly served to the respondent. In terms of the earlier order, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2 The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondent. An application was made by the respondent at Exhibit-75 seeking permission of the trial Court to lead secondary evidence of document dated 26th September 2006. By order dated 11th September 2008, the said application has been rejected. 3 The respondent preferred a Revision Application purporting to be under section 34 of the Maharastra Rent Control Act,1999. By the impugned order,the said revision application was not only entertained but the same has been allowed. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this Court 2 in the case of Sukhdev Prasad Raghubir vs. Rambhujarat Kshampati (1983 Mh.L.J. 9). She submitted that the Division Bench of this Court held that the revision application under section 29 (3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 is not maintainable against the purely procedural orders which do not finally decide the rights and liabilities of the parties under the said Act of 1947. She submitted that the revision application is not maintainable as the order challenged in revision application was a purely procedural order. 5 I have given consideration to the submissions. Section 29(3) of the said Act of 1947 and section 34 of the said Act of 1999 are in pari materia. The view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Sukhdev Prasad Raghubir (supra) is that a revision application under section 29(3) of the said Act of 1947 is not maintainable against the purely procedural order. 6 In the present case, the order under challenge in the revision application was passed on an application made by the respondent seeking permission to lead secondary evidence. The said application was rejected. Apart from the fact that the said order is purely interlocutory in nature, the same does not determine the rights and liabilities of the parties under the said Act of 1999. In view of decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Sukhdev Prasad Raghubir (supra) and in view of decision of this Court in case of Mrs.Laheribai J. Trivedi (since deceased through L.Rs) vs.Dharamdatta V. Trivedi and others (Writ Petition no. 3926 of 2008), revision application before the District Court was not maintainable. The learned District Judge has not at all considered the limited scope of the 3 revisional jurisdiction. In the circumstances, the petition must succeed only on the ground that the revision application was not maintainable. 7 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned order dated 17th December 2008 is quashed and set aside and the Civil Revision Application No. 60 of 2008 is dismissed as not maintainable. ii)Notwithstanding this order, it will be open for the respondent to challenge the order dated 11th September 2008 by filing appropriate proceedings. iii)Petition is allowed in above terms with no order as to costs. JUDGE