Shantilal S/O Shaligram Chandak vs Somdatta S/O Ramprasad Shukla And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2267 Bom

                                                                              wp2618.16
                                             1




                                                                           
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                   
                         WRIT PETITION       No. 2618 OF 2016




                                                  
    Shantilal s/o Shaligram Chandak,
    aged about 70 years, Occ.: Business,
    c/o Shyamlal s/o Shaligram Chandak,
    aged about 67 years, Occ.: Business,




                                          
    r/o Gomati Niwas, Near Waichal Hospital,
    Tapadiya Nagar, Akola.                             .... PETITIONER.
                               
                              VERSUS
                              
    1. Somdatta s/o Ramprasad Shukla,
        aged about 78 years.

    2. Vishnudatta s/o Ramprsada Shukla,
      


       aged about 71 years.
   



    3. Aniruddha s/o Ramprasad Shukla,
       aged about 63 years.
       All by occupation Business,
       residing at Giriraj Building,





       Om Housing Society,
       Gorakshan Ward, Akola.                              ....  RESPONDENTS.



    Shri C.A. Joshi Advocate for the Petitioner.





    Shri S.A. Mohta Advocate for respondents.
                                     .....


                                       CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : 04.05.2016.

wp2618.16

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Issue notice to the respondents. Shri Mohta, learned

counsel, appears for respondents after waiving notice on their behalf.

2. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

3. The only grievance raised by the petitioner is that if the

suit is tried as a Regular Civil Suit while maintaining the title as a

Small Cause Suit, it will pose difficulty for the petitioner as an objection

could be taken when the appeal is filed for challenging the order passed

in the suit which has been titled a Small Cause Suit, as no appeal is

maintainable but a revision is.

4. The grievance is genuine and requires appropriate

resolution by the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

learned counsel for the respondents submit that they have no objection

if the title of the suit is directed to be changed and the suit is directed

to be registered as a Regular Civil Suit. They also agree that after

conversion of the suit into Regular Civil Suit, the same will be tried from

the stage at which the suit is pending.

5. In view of the above, writ petition is partly allowed.

Impugned order is modified only to the extent that now the suit shall be

registered as a Regular Civil Suit now and not as a Small Cause Suit

and it shall be tried as a Regular Civil Suit from the stage at which it is

presently pending before the trial Court. Both the sides are directed to

wp2618.16

appear before the trial Court on the date which is already fixed and

shall co-operate with the trial Court in expeditious disposal of the suit

in accordance with law. The trial Court shall dispose of the suit

expeditiously and in any case within three months from the next date of

appearance of the parties before it.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to

cost.

                                  ig                     JUDGE
                                
    /TA/