IRAGHAVENDRA VENKATESH BURLI Vs. NALANAIKANATH BALAKRISHNADAS GUJJAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 is invoked by the plaintiff-petitioners in this petition by way of challenge to the notices ordered on the three interim appeals filed by the applicants under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC.

(2.) THIS is a case of tapping the doors of a Court by the respondents on the following facts:

(3.) THE predecessors of the petitioners had filed a suit for possession of the premises in terms of the Bombay Rent Control Act. The suit came to be dismissed. The appeal also stood dismissed. Civil revision petition was filed in this Court by the legal representatives of the deceased R. N. Burli and V. N. Burli. Daring the pendency of the said civil revision petition in this Court, the predecessors of the petitioners filed another suit for possession. The earlier civil revision petition filed was allowed and the orders of the Munsiff and District Judge were set aside. Matter was taken to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition filed by the respondents. After disposal of the special leave petition, the petitioners got the subsequent suit amended by restricting their claims to the extent of 11 guntas and sought for a declaration of title and possession. They entered into a compromise before the Lok Adalath. Compromise was recorded and an order was passed. On 6-12-2000, three interim appeals were filed by three petitioners claiming to be the proposed defendants 27 to 29 in terms of Order 1, rule 10 of the CPC. They have also filed one more interim appeal seeking for an order not to draw any decree till the disposal of the three interim applications filed by them. The learned Trial Judge, in terms of his order dated 6-12-2000 issued notices in respect of three applications filed under Order 1, Rule 10. This order is challenged in this petition.