Manisha Manohar Warik And Anr vs Smt. Roohi Rajendra Gurav And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4533 Bom

                                                                   29.1213.20 wp.doc

ISM
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 1213 OF 2020

      Manisha Manohar Warik and another                           ....Petitioners

              V/s.

      Smt. Roohi Rajendra Gaurav and others                       .....Respondents

      Mr. Hemant Ghadigaonkar for the Petitioners
      Mr. Suresh Dubey for Respondent no. 1


                               CORAM :   NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                               DATE:     MARCH 11, 2021.

      P.C.:

      1]      Heard. Notice of Motion No. 455 of 2019 is taken out by the

Petitioner under the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 for return of Plaint as same needs to be

presented before the Court having jurisdiction which came to be

rejected vide order impugned dated 22/11/2019.

2] Learned counsel for the Petitioner would invite attention of this

Court to pleadings in the Plaint so as to demonstrate that prima facie

29.1213.20 wp.doc

dispute is in the nature of landlord-tenant/licensee-licensor.

According to him, mother of present Respondent-Plaintiff was

licensor of the Petitioner and Respondent has stepped into her shoes

and that being so, Suit initiated simplicitor for declaration, injunction

possession and damages is not maintainable before the Court.

According to him, tenor of the entire proceedings are based on leave

and licence agreement and relying on Judgment of the Apex Court in

the matter of Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain and others V/s. Eknath

Vithal Ogale1 the contentions are, City Civil Court lacks jurisdiction.

3] Counsel for Respondent supports the order impugned.

4] Looking to the nature of subject matter of the Suit, learned

Judge of the City Civil Court while rejecting the prayer has noticed

that there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction. The fact remains that

from the pleadings of the Plaint, it can be prima facie noticed that

Respondent has not recognized status of the Petitioner-Defendant as

that of his licensee by none of his conduct viz. of accepting licence

1 [(1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 665]

29.1213.20 wp.doc

fees subsequent to the death of her mother. Case of the Plaintiff

appears to be based on gift deed executed by her mother and that

being so, whether Respondent-Plaintiff has inherited right of licensor

can be an issue to be looked into by the City Civil Court while

exercising inherent jurisdiction. If at an appropriate stage, it is

established by the Petitioner-Defendant that Court below has lacked

inherent jurisdiction, it is always open for the Court to take

appropriate corrective measures.

5] In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out.

Petition fails, stands dismissed.

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]