Dismissed

Smt. Laxmidevi Jagmohan Bagarka and Ors. v. Arun Parmeshwar Bagarka and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jan 2024WP/10354/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, defendants in a Small Causes Court eviction suit filed as gratuitous licensees who claimed co-ownership, challenged orders upholding the Trial Court's jurisdictional finding under Section 9-A CPC. The High Court held the decided preliminary issue could not be reopened post-Nusli Neville Wadia and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

None granted; ad-interim order continued for four weeks from uploading of the order.

Smt. Laxmidevi Jagmohan Bagarka and Ors. Vs Arun… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

 35-WP-10354-2014-J.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.10354 OF 2014

¶4

1. Smt. Laxmidevi Jagmohan Bagarka
Aged about 71 years, Occ. Housewife,
of Mumbai, Adult, Hindu Inhabitant,
Residing at Shriniwas, Ground Floor,
63, J. B. Nagar, Andheri, Mumbai-400 059.

¶5

2. Shri Sushil Jagmohan Bagarka
Aged about 55 years, Occ. Business of Mumbai,
Adult, Hindu Inhabitant, Residing at
Shriniwas, Ground Floor, 63, J. B. Nagar,
Andheri, Mumbai-400 059.

¶6

3. Shri Sunil Jagmohan Bagarka
Aged about 53 years, Occ. Business
of Mumbai, Adult, Hindu Inhabitant,
Residing at Annapurna (Bagarka House)
42, J. B. Nagar, Andheri, Mumbai-400 059.

¶7

4. Shri Sanjay Jagmohan Bagarka,
Aged about 51 years, Occ. Business
of Mumbai, Adult, Hindu Inhabitant,
Residing at Annapurna (Bagarka House)
42, J. B. Nagar, Andheri, Mumbai-400 059.

¶8

 … Petitioners

¶9

(Org. Defendants)

¶10

V/s.

¶11

1. Arun Parmeshwar Bagarka
(Deleted since deceased)

¶12

1(a) Smt. Kalpana Arun Bagarka
aged about 62 years,
Shriniwas, 63, J. B. Nagar,
Shrinivas Bagarka Marg,
Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400 059.

¶13

Nikita Gadgil 1/21

¶14

 35-WP-10354-2014-J.doc

¶15

1(b) Shri. Agyey Arun Bagarka
aged about 51 years,
Shriniwas, 63, J. B. Nagar,
Shrinivas Bagarka Marg,
Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400 059.

¶16

1(c) Smt. Arpana Tiberwala
Aged about 53 years,
Fkat Bi, G28/F, Tower-3,
Caribbean Coast Phase-I,
2 Kin Tung Road, Lantau Island,
Tung Chung NT, HongKong.

¶17

1(d) Smt. Archana Vinay Kothari
Aged about 48 years,
202, Satyan Tower,
90 ft Road, Thakur Complex,
Kandivali (East), Mumbai-400 101

¶18

2. Anil Parmeshwar Bagarka
Aged 61 years, Occupation : Retired

¶19

3. Ashok Parmeshwar Bagarka
Aged 59 Years, Occupation : Business,
All of Mumbai Adults, Hindu Inhabitants,
Residing at Shriniwas, 63, J. B. Nagar,
Shrinivas Bagarka Marg, Andheri (East),
Mumbai- 400 059....Respondents
(Org. Plaintiffs)

¶20

Mr. Surel Shah, Counsel with Mr. Ankur Jain i/by Mr.Ram Singh,
Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶21

Mr. Vinod Pandey with Ms. Nilima C. Sarvagod i/b i/by Mr.S.U.Pandey,
Advocate for the Respondents no.1 to 3.

¶22

CORAM:ABHAY AHUJA, J.
RESERVED ON:4th AUGUST 2023
 PRONOUNCED ON:12th JANUARY 2024

¶23

Nikita Gadgil 2/21

¶24

 35-WP-10354-2014-J.doc

¶25

JUDGMENT:

¶26

1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
impugns the judgment and order of the Appellate Bench of the Small
Causes Court at Mumbai (Bandra Branch) passed on 30th October, 2014
in Revision Application No. 87 of 14 in Exhibit No. 14 taken out in L. E.
& C. Suit No. 91/138 of 2008 (the “said suit”) by the Petitioners.

¶27

2.The arguments in this matter were concluded on 4th August,
2023 and the judgment was reserved. The Ad-interim order granted
was also permitted to continue till the pronouncement of the judgment.
Learned Counsel were also granted liberty to submit written
submissions within a period of one week. However, the matter was
mentioned on 18th August, 2023 and extension of time was sought to
file written submissions. Accordingly, the written submissions on behalf
of the Respondents were received on 1st September, 2023.

¶28

3. The Petitioners are the original Defendants and the Respondents

¶29

are the original Plaintiffs, who had filed the said suit against the
Petitioners for possession of property being premises on the ground

¶30

Nikita Gadgil 3/21

¶31

 35-WP-10354-2014-J.doc

¶32

floor on the plot of land bearing plot no. 63 (old plot no.1) of Shree
Rajasthan Co-operative Housing Society Limited admeasuring 650 sq. ft
carpet area situated on land bearing C.T.S. No. 318 of village-Kondivita,
Taluka Andheri, Mumbai Suburban District (the “said property”) on the
premise that the predecessor in title of the Petitioners was a gratuitous
licensee of the predecessor in title of the Respondents.

¶33

4. The Petitioners appeared and raised an issue under Section 9-A
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the “CPC”) as it existed then. By
an order dated 10th February, 2009, the Trial Judge, framed a
preliminary issue on jurisdiction and also granted liberty to the parties
to lead evidence. The Petitioners led evidence and it is submitted on
behalf of the Petitioners that the Respondents did not lead any
evidence.

¶34

5. By judgment and order dated 10th February, 2009, the Trial Court
held that the Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit and
also held that the theory put forth by the Petitioners that they are co-
owners cannot be believed. The Petitioners took exception to the
aforesaid judgment and order and filed Revision Application before the
Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. The Appellate / Division

¶35

Nikita Gadgil 4/21

¶36

 35-WP-10354-2014-J.doc

¶37

Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissed the Revision Application
holding that the Trial Court had rightly held that it had jurisdiction to
try and entertain the Suit and that no error was committed by the Trial
Court in recording its finding.

¶38

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, the Petitioners have filed this Petition.

¶39

7.Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that
the Trial Court framed preliminary issue under Section 9-A of the CPC.
The law that held the field was that the parties could lead evidence
while deciding issue under Section 9-A of the CPC. The Trial Court has
held on merits that the Petitioners are co-owners is not believable. Mr.
Shah, would submit that the Revisional Court despite recording that
parties had led evidence still in paragraph 22 observed that it would
require full fledged hearing and further erred in holding that on the
basis of pleadings in the Plaint, the Trial Court has held that it has
jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Learned Counsel submits that this
finding is not only contrary to the record that the parties have led
evidence, but the finding that the issue is to be tried under Order

¶40

Nikita Gadgil 5/21

¶41

 35-WP-10354-2014-J.doc

¶42

14 Rule 2 of the CPC is contrary to the scope of Section 9-A as it existed
then.

¶43

8. Learned Counsel also submits that the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties
and Ors1has categorically held that issue of jurisdiction under Section
9-A of the CPC cannot be tried if it is a mixed question of law and facts
and has further held that no evidence could be led in support of such
issue. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court has overturned the judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Meher Singh Vs. Deepak

¶44

Sawhny2. Learned Counsel would submit that thus, the law as it stands
is that pending proceedings under Section 9-A are to be continued
which includes the present Writ Petition. Therefore, the contention of
the Respondents that the issue under Section 9-A of the CPC of
jurisdiction cannot now be dealt with in view of Nusli Neville Wadia
Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors (supra) is not the correct proposition.

¶45

9. It is submitted that the Revisional Court has not considered the

¶46

fact that the Trial Court has on merits after appreciating the evidence
rejected the Petitioners’ case of being a co-owner. The Revisional Court

¶47

1 (2020) 6 SCC 557

¶48

2 CDJ 1998 BHC 1406

¶49

Nikita Gadgil 6/21

¶50

 35-WP-10354-2014-J.doc

¶51

has only held that the issue requires full fledged trial but has not dealt
with the issue of ownership of Petitioners. In that eventuality the
matter has to be remanded back to the Revisional Court because the
parties had already led evidence pursuant to the liberty granted by the
Trial Court and that this fact has not been considered.

¶52

10. Without prejudice to the above contention, the learned Counsel
would submit that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that
under Section 9-A of the CPC, the issue of jurisdiction which involves
mixed question of law and facts cannot be gone into, then the issue of
jurisdiction will have to be kept open and tried along with other issues.
The Petitioners cannot be non-suited and left remediless as the findings
of the Trial Court that the Petitioners are not the co-owners would be
binding on Petitioners without the same being set aside.

¶53

11.On the other hand, Mr. Pandey, learned Counsel for Respondents
would submit that the suit has been filed for evicting the Petitioners
being gratuitous licensee. That Petitioners by filing the written
statement dated 25th November, 2008 resisted the claim and submitted
that Petitioners are not gratuitous licensee and claimed to be co-owners
of the suit premises. That after filing of the written statement,

¶54

Nikita Gadgil 7/21

¶55

 35-WP-10354-2014-J.doc

¶56

Petitioners had taken out an application for framing preliminary issue
of jurisdiction, which issue was framed after which the parties were
directed to lead evidence. That Petitioners had filed their affidavit in
lieu of oral examination-in-chief and compilation of documents.
Thereafter, examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the
Defendants’ witness No.1 was conducted. After the completion of cross-
examination an order was passed on 6th May, 2014, pursuant to which
the Trial Court held that it has jurisdiction to entertain and try the said
suit. Being aggrieved by the said decision, Revision was filed before the
Appellate Bench and by order dated 30th October, 2014, the Appellate
Bench upheld the order dated 6th May, 2014 of the Trial Judge.

¶57

12.Mr. Pandey, learned Counsel would submit that in view of the law
settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nusli Neville
Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors (supra), by which the law laid down
by this Court in the case of Meher Singh Vs. Deepak Sawhny (supra)
has been reversed, both under Section 9-A of the CPC as well as under
Order 14 Rule 2, only a pure question of law but not a mixed question
of law can be decided as a preliminary issue as a mixed question of law
requires recording of evidence. That although none of the proceedings
can be said to be pending, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

¶58

Nikita Gadgil 8/21

¶59

 35-WP-10354-2014-J.doc

¶60

Court in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors
(supra) would apply to any application pending under Section 9-A of
the CPC or under Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC. Learned Counsel would
submit that both the Courts have observed that the Small Causes Court
has jurisdiction to entertain and try the said suit and therefore, the
Petition cannot be said to be in continuation of those proceedings and
is also devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.

¶61

13.I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and considered
the rival contentions.

¶62

14. In the facts of this case, the Trial Court had framed the issue,
“Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present
suit?” and after framing the issue, and after considering the evidence,
came to a conclusion that the Trial Court did have jurisdiction to try
and entertain the said suit. While deciding the issue of jurisdiction, as
Petitioners had claimed co-ownership of the suit property, the Trial
Court after considering the evidence as recorded in paragraphs 9 and
10 of the order dated 6th May, 2014, held that the documents filed on
record did not support the case of Petitioners, that they were the co-
owners. That the lease deed dated 6th December, 1960 executed

¶63

Nikita Gadgil 9/21

¶64

 35-WP-10354-2014-J.doc

¶65

between Rajasthan Co-operative Housing Society Limited stood in the
name of Shriniwas Bhanwandas Bagarka. The share certificate was also
not in the name Jagmohan Bagarka, when he was acting as a secretary
of the society. That the theory put forth by Defendants (Petitioners
herein) that they were co-owners could not be believed; that if the
averments in the Plaint were seen, Plaintiffs had come up with the case
that Defendants were gratuitous licensee of Plaintiffs; that from the
pleadings in the Plaint it appeared that the occupation of Defendants in
the suit premises was in the capacity of the gratuitous licensee and that
relationship between the parties was not denied; that in the
circumstances, the possibility that the predecessor in title of Plaintiffs
had given the suit premises as a gratuitous licensee to Defendants could
not be ruled out and that once that was the conclusion, the Small
Causes Court, was the only Court to try all suits against the gratuitous
licensee.

¶66

15.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia
Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors (supra) decided on 4th October, 2019, has
observed that under the provisions of Section 9-A of the CPC and Order
14 Rule 2 of the CPC, it is open to decide preliminary issues if it is
purely a question of law and not a mixed question of law and fact by

¶67

Nikita Gadgil 10/21

¶68

 35-WP-10354-2014-J.doc

¶69

recording evidence, overruling the decision of this Court in Meher
Singh Vs. Deepak Sawhny (supra) holding that under Section 9-A of
the CPC, the issue to try a suit/jurisdiction can be decided by recording
evidence if required and by proper adjudication.

¶70

16.It is worthwhile here to observe that prior to the decision in the
case of Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors (supra), the
position of law with respect to Section 9-A of the CPC was governed by
decision of this Court in the case of Meher Singh Vs. Deepak Sawhny
(supra), which held that under Section 9-A, the issue to try a
suit/jurisdiction can be decided by recording evidence, if required and

¶71

by proper adjudication of the issue. Paragraph 13 of the said decision is
usefully quoted as under :-

¶72

13.In the result we hold that if section 9-A is not added, then
at interim stage, the Court is not required to decide the issue of
jurisdiction finally and the Court by referring to the averments
made in the plaint, would ordinarily determine whether or not
the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. However, it is apparent
that section 9-A is added with a specific object to see that
objection with regard to jurisdiction of the Court is decided as a
preliminary issue. According to the Legislature, the practice of
granting injunctions without going into the question of
jurisdiction even though raised, has led to grave abuse. Hence
the said section is added to see that issue of jurisdiction is
decided as a preliminary issue notwithstanding anything
contained in the Civil Procedure Code, including Order XIV, Rule
2. Once the issue is to be decided by raising it as a preliminary
issue, it is required to be determined after proper adjudication.

¶73

Nikita Gadgil 11/21

¶74

 35-WP-10354-2014-J.doc

¶75

Adjudication would require giving of opportunity to the parties
to lead evidence, if required.

¶76

17.However, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors (supra), which has
overruled the decision in the case of Meher Singh Vs. Deepak Sawhny
(supra). After the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors (supra), only a pure
question of law concerning inherent jurisdiction of the Court to
entertain the Suit can be decided as a preliminary issue under Section
9-A or Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC and not a pure question of fact or a
mixed question of fact and law be decided as a preliminary issue as the
same would involve consideration of facts and evidence to be led.

¶77

18.The Trial Court in the case at hand, after recording in paragraph
8, that the Small Causes Court cannot decide the title and ownership,
however, it could decide the issue of landlord and tenant relationship
or licensor or licensee relationship, observed that in the facts of this
case the Defendants (the Petitioners herein) have raised an objection
that they are co-owners of the property, therefore, the Court was
required to look into the said aspect in an ancillary manner to ascertain
that the landlord and tenant relationship/licensor or licensee existed

¶78

Nikita Gadgil 12/21

¶79

 35-WP-10354-2014-J.doc

¶80

between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. The Trial Court held that
only if it is proved that such a relationship is in existence only then the
Small Causes Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the Suit.

¶81

19.The Respondents herein being the Plaintiffs in the said suit
premises under Section 41 of Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882
have alleged that the Defendants (the Petitioner herein) were
gratuitous licensee. The Petitioners herein who are the Defendants in
the Suit had filed written statement denying that they were the
gratuitous licensee. They had also raised a defense that they were the
co-owners in respect of the suit property and also challenged the
relationship between themselves and the Plaintiffs. The Defendants also
filed an Application for framing preliminary issue as to whether the
Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to try and entertain the Suit. The
Application was heard and decided whereby the preliminary issue was
framed. Thereafter, the parties were given an opportunity to lead
evidence on the preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction of the Court.
The Defendant examined himself and one more witness in support of
their contentions. No one was examined on behalf of the Plaintiffs.

¶82

Nikita Gadgil 13/21

¶83

 35-WP-10354-2014-J.doc

¶84

20.Based on the law existing prior to the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties
and Ors (supra), the Trial Court examined the witnesses to ascertain
the Predecessors-in-title of the Defendant as well as the documents
produced by the Defendants as referred in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the
Judgment of the Trial Court. After examining the said documents it was
observed that the theory put forth by the Defendants that they were co-
owners could not be believed. That in the Plaint, the Plaintiff had come
up with the case that the Defendants are the gratuitous licensee of the
Plaintiffs. That considering the pleading in the Plaint it appeared that
the occupation of the Defendants in the Suit premises was in the
capacity of gratuitous licensee. Holding that the relationship between
the parties was not denied, the Trial Court observed that in the
circumstances the possibility could not be ruled out that the
Predecessors-in-title of the Plaintiffs had given the Suit premises as a
gratuitous licensee to the Defendants. That once the said conclusion
was reached, the Small Causes Court being the only Court to try all the
Suits against the gratuitous licensee would have jurisdiction to try and
entertain the Suit.

¶85

Nikita Gadgil 14/21

¶86

 35-WP-10354-2014-J.doc

¶87

21.The Trial Court in accordance with the law prevailing on 6th May,
2014, passed the order declaring that the Small Causes Court had
jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit.

¶88

22.In my view, the finding of the Trial Court that the theory put
forth by the Defendants that they are the co-owners cannot be believed
would not mean that the Trial Court has foreclosed the Suit. The Suit
for eviction has been filed, as noted above by the Plaintiffs for eviction
of the Defendants from the Suit premises alleging that the Defendants
are the gratuitous licensee, the Small Causes Court has only disbelieved
the co-ownership theory put forth by the Defendants but considering
the possibility that the predecessors in title of the Plaintiffs had given
the Suit premises on gratuitous license to the Defendants could not be
ruled out, decided the issue of jurisdiction but the issue whether the
Defendants are to be evicted from the Suit premises on the basis of that
they are gratuitous licensee is yet to be decided.

¶89

23.The Revisional Court has upheld the order of the Trial Court that
the Trial Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the Suit and that no
error has been committed by the Trial Court in recording its finding. In
the case of Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors (supra),

¶90

Nikita Gadgil 15/21

¶91

 35-WP-10354-2014-J.doc

¶92

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while discussing the scope of Section 9-A
and Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC, has observed that although the scope of
Section 9-A is different as compared to the provisions of Order 14 Rule
2 and scope of Section 9-A is limited and not as comprehensive as that
of Order 14 Rule 2, however, the concept of Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC
with respect to what can be treated as preliminary issue will be
applicable under Section 9-A only in case question of “jurisdiction to
entertain” arises.

¶93

24.Ergo, going by the above analysis, firstly, because in view even of
the preliminary issue of jurisdictionhaving been decided under Section
9-A of the CPC, in accordance with law prevailing prior to Nusli Neville
Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors (supra), and not interfered with by
the Revisional Court, and secondly because in any event after the said
decision in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors
(supra), any preliminary issue under the provisions of Section 9-A as
well as Order 14 Rule 2 can be decided only if it is purely a question of
law and not a mixed question of law and fact by recording evidence,
the submissions of Mr.Shah, with respect to the Revisional Court’s
findings in relation to Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC or of the requirement
of a full fledged hearing to decide the preliminary issue of jurisdiction

¶94

Nikita Gadgil 16/21

¶95

 35-WP-10354-2014-J.doc

¶96

or a request for remand in my view, would not be relevant.

¶97

25.In paragraph 89, of the decision in the case of Nusli Neville
Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has observed that to the effect that even though Section 2 of the
Maharashtra Second Amendment Act, 2018, which provides that where
consideration of preliminary issue framed under Section 9-A is pending,
on the date of commencement of the CPC, and the said issue shall be
decided and disposed of by the Court under Section 9-A, as if the
provision under Section 9-A has not been deleted, that does not change
the legal scenario as to what can be decided as a preliminary issue
under Section 9-A of the CPC as applicable to Maharashtra. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the saving created by the
provisions of Section 2 where consideration of preliminary issue framed
under Section 9-A is pending on the date of commencement of the CPC
(Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2018, can be decided only if it comes
within the parameters as found by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the
interpretation of Section 9-A and that it has been reiterated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court that no issue can be decided only under the
guise that the issue has been framed under Section 9-A and was
pending consideration on the date of commencement of the

¶98

Nikita Gadgil 17/21

¶99

 35-WP-10354-2014-J.doc

¶100

Maharashtra Amendment Act, 2018. This clearly means that even if an
issue was pending consideration under Section 9-A, the law as to the
applicability of the said Section as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors
(supra) would apply viz. only pure question of law can be decided as a
preliminary issue and not a mixed question of law and fact by
recording evidence.

¶101

26.Also in view of the above, opinion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors (supra),
that if on the date of determination of the subject matter in Nusli
Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors (supra), if any Application is
pending under Section 9-A or any issue of is pending for adjudication
under Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC, the same shall be decided in the
light of the law laid down, would not mean that the decision of the
Trial Court on 6th May, 2014 and of the Appellate Court on 30th October,
2014 can be reopened on the ground that the Writ Petition is pending
when the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court has been rendered as the
preliminary issue of jurisdiction has already been determined by two
competent Courts of law. Moreover, the aforesaid opinion of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court does not mean that the Judgment in the case of

¶102

Nikita Gadgil 18/21

¶103

 35-WP-10354-2014-J.doc

¶104

Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors (supra), can be used
to reopen already decided and concluded decision on the preliminary
issue of jurisdiction raised under Section 9-A and decided in
accordance with the law prevailing prior to the decision in the case of
Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and Ors (supra).

¶105

27.The present Writ Petition cannot therefore be considered to be a
continuance of pending proceedings under Section 9-A, as the subject
matter of the Suit with respect to the issue of jurisdiction of the Small
Causes Court was not only concluded by the Trial Court by order dated
6th May, 2014 but also confirmed by the Appellate Bench by order dated
30th October, 2014. It cannot be, therefore, said that the subject matter
of Exhibit-14 viz. Application for framing preliminary issue decided by
the Trial Court and the Appellate Court is pending.

¶106

28.Mr. Shah, has also sought to canvass that even if it is assumed for
the sake of argument that under Section 9-A, issue of jurisdiction
involves mixed question of law and facts cannot be gone into, then in
that eventuality the issue of jurisdiction will have to be kept open at
trial along with other issues as the Petitioners cannot be non suited and
left remediless as the findings of the Trial Court that the Petitioners are

¶107

Nikita Gadgil 19/21

¶108

 35-WP-10354-2014-J.doc

¶109

not the co-owners would be binding on the Petitioners without the
same being set aside. I am afraid that this contention of Mr.Shah, is
only stated to be rejected in as much as the Defendants (the Petitioners
herein) have not been non suited as the Suit has been filed by the
Plaintiffs for eviction of the Defendants on the ground that they are
gratuitous licensees. It is not a Suit that has been filed by the
Defendants for a declaration that they are co-owners; the said ground
was taken only to challenge the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court
which was not believed by the Trial Court as noted above. Needless to
say that the Trial Court under Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC is required to
pronounce a judgment on all issues and the Plaintiffs having filed the
Suit against the Defendants for eviction on the basis that the
Defendants are a gratuitous licensee which would need adjudication by
the Trial Courton issues framed after considering the Plaint and the
written statement.

¶110

29.The Trial Court, in my view, has correctly come to the conclusion
that it has jurisdiction to entertain and try the said suit after recording
the evidence in line with the law then prevailing. The Appellate Court
has confirmed the decision of the Trial Court. Therefore, in view of the
above discussion, I do not deem it fit to interfere with the order dated

¶111

Nikita Gadgil 20/21

¶112

 35-WP-10354-2014-J.doc

¶113

30th October, 2014 of Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in
Revision Application No. 87 of 14 in Exhibit No. 14 taken out in L. E. &
C. Suit No. 91/138 of 2008, under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, there being neither any error nor illegality nor perversity. The
Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶114

30.When the judgment is pronounced, a request is made to continue
the ad-interim order granted earlier. Let the ad-interim order continue
for a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of the order.

¶115

 (ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶116

Digitally signed by NIKITA NIKITA YOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date: 2024.02.10 21:39:18 +0530

¶117

Nikita Gadgil 21/21

Smt. Laxmidevi Jagmohan Bagarka and Ors. v. Arun Parmeshwar Bagarka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Laxmidevi Jagmohan Bagarka and Ors. v. Arun Parmeshwar Bagarka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Jaya Lakshmi and Anr. Vs P.R. Bafna and Ors.

The Transport Manager, Thane Municipal Transport Vs Reetadevi Sanjay Pandey and Ors.

Pushpa Makharia vs Trivenidevi Radhakrishna Makharia Family Trust and 2 Ors.

Modi Rubber Limited vs Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and Ors.

Vinay Kumar Modi through Ca S. K. Bajpai vs Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and Anr.

Vijay Ramchandra Patil vs Satyawan Ramchandra Patil and 5 Others