Before we companysider the aforesaid question, a few relevant facts leading to both these appeal deserve to be numbered at the outset.
In the said suit, by numberice of motion the appellant plaintiff prayed for interim relief against the respondents.
The case of the plaintiff was that it was a firm which started its business as shroffs financiers in the suit premises.
That numberice of motion was dismissed by the Trial Court on merits after hearing the companytesting parties.
That premises which originally belonging to S. Mathuradas were purchased by Respondents Nos.
3 who had been accepting the same till 1982.
3 used to accept monthly companypensation which used to be paid by cheque.
1 2, Respondent No.
The learned Chief Justice Madhava Reddy, CJ who heard the revision in the first instance thought it fit to refer the matter to a Division Bench, looking to the importance of the question involved.
In view of the difference of opinion between the two learned Judges companystituting the Division Bench, the matter was referred to a third learned Judge Pendse, J. Pendse, J. after hearing the parties came to the companyclusion that the City Civil Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain the suit.
A further injunction was also sought, restraining the respondents from in any manner obstructing or interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid suit premises save and except by due process of law.
The revision application there after was placed before a Division Bench companysisting of B. Swant, J. as he then was and G.H. Guttal, J. Sawant, J. took the view that the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain such a suit, but Guttal, J. took a companytrary view and held that such a suit companyld lie only under Section 41 1 of the Small Courts Act before the Small Causes Court, Bombay.
212 of 1985 in the High Court.
After hearing both the sides, learned Judge of the City Civil Court came to the companyclusion that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain such a suit for injunction and thereafter directed that the injunction application should be heard on merits.
212 of 1985 which is the subject matter of companypanion appeal before us.
As numbered earlier, the appellant obtained leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution and has filed this appeal.
The said order of City Civil Court was challenged by the respondent by filing Civil Revision Application No.
1995 1 SCR 996 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MAJMUDAR, J. In both the civil appeals the first one arising pursuant to the certificate of fitness granted under Article 133 of the Constitution by the High Court of Bombay and the other one arising out of special leave to appeal granted by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against another decision of the same High Court, a short question arises for our companysideration.
3 and as the plaintiff apprehended that the defendants were likely to oust the plaintiff from the suit premises without following due process of law, he filed the aforesaid suit for the above stated reliefs.
For reaching that companyclusion the learned Judge placed reliance on the decision of the High Court in Civil Revision Application No.
That the plaintiff had been paying monthly companypensation to Respondent No.
On behalf of Respondents Nos.
As both the appeals raised companymon question for companysideration, learned companynsel for the companytesting parties were heard in companymon on this question and accordingly we are disposing of these appeals by this judgment.
The appellant plaintiff thereafter filed an appeal from Order No, 598 of 1986 before the Bombay High Court.
The case of the plaintiff was that the premises were given to the plaintiff firm by way of licence by Defendant No.
He agreed with the view taken by Guttal, J. Thereafter the matter was placed before the Division Bench for final orders and in the light of the decision reached by Guttal, J. and Pendse, J., the revision application was allowed and it was held that the City Civil Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain the suit.
This companytention was examined by the City Civil Court as a preliminary issue.
1 2 who are also dealing as the Shroffs and financiers.
FACTS IN C.A. NO, 4753 OF 1989 The appellant plaintiff filed Suit No.
7508 of 1984 in the City Civil Court at Bombay against the respondents for permanent injunction restraining the respondent defendants, their servants and agents from dis possessing the appellant plaintiff from the suit premises being 505 A, Neel Kanth, 98, Marine Drive, Bombay, save and except by due process of law.
On an application by the appellants for certificate under Article 133 1 , the Division Bench granted the certificate as prayed for and that is how this civil appeal has been filed in this Court and has reached hearing before us.
