Shri Peer Mohammad Mulan vs Smt. Leela W/O Madhukar Gokhe
2017 Latest Caselaw 4063 Bom

wp.4470.16.jud                           1


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

                     WRIT PETITION NO.4470 OF 2016


Shri Peer Mohammad Mulan,
Aged about 59 years, Occupation : Private.
R/o Shop Timki, Panai Peth,
Opp. Kabir Mandir, Mominpura, Nagpur.                               .... Petitioner

       -- Versus -

Smt. Leela w/o Madhkar Gokhe,
Aged about 64 years, Occupation : Housewife,
R/o Shop Timki, Panai Peth,
Opp. Kabir Mandir, Mominpura, Nagpur.                           .... Respondent


None for the Petitioner.
Shri H.R. Gadhia, Advocate for the Respondent.

                CORAM           : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
                DATE            : JULY 5, 2017.


ORAL JUDGMENT :-


                None for petitioner. Heard Shri H.R. Gadhia, learned

Counsel for respondent.



02]             This petition takes an exception to the order dated

11/02/2016 passed by the learned 5 th Joint Civil Judge, Junior

Division, Nagpur below Exh.42 in R.C.S. No.5087/2012 rejecting




 ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017                   ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:54:34 :::
 wp.4470.16.jud                              2


an application under Order VII Rule 11 and Section 9-A of the

Code of Civil Procedure filed by petitioner/defendant.



03]             With        the    assistance     of      learned         Counsel          for

respondent, this Court has gone through the impugned order.

Copy of plaint clearly indicates that suit for recovery of vacant

possession of the suit premises was filed by respondent/plaintif

against the petitioner/defendant. As plaintif was in need of the

premises, she filed suit for vacant possession. No where in the

plaint, respondent has stated that her claim is based on the

relationship of landlord and tenant.



04]             If   the        averments   in   the     plaint      are      taken       into

consideration in entirety, it is clear that the suit has been filed on

the ground of permissive possession.



05]             In such a situation, reasonings recorded by the trial

Court cannot be faulted with as the civil court can entertain, try

and decide the dispute between the parties. No jurisdictional

error has been noticed in the impugned order.                                Hence, the

following order :




 ::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017                          ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 00:54:34 :::
 wp.4470.16.jud                       3


                                 ORDER

● Writ Petition No.4470/2016 stands dismissed with no

order as to costs.

*sdw (KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.)