BHARTIBEN SHAH Vs. GRACY THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following questions have been referred for our opinion :

(2.) For giving answers to the above questions, we propose to proceed in the following manner: <p><table class = tablestyle width="90%%" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="font-family:Verdana"> <tr> <td width="10%"><div align="center"></div></td> <td width="67%">&nbsp;</td> <td width="12%"><div align="center">Para Nos.</div></td> <td width="11%"><div align="center">Page Nos.</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">(i)</div></td> <td>Indicating brief facts leading to this reference</td> <td><div align="center">3 to 6</div></td> <td><div align="center">4 to 5</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">(ii)</div></td> <td>Setting out the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties</td> <td><div align="center">7 to 9</div></td> <td><div align="center">6 to 15</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">(iii)</div></td> <td>Statutory provisions</td> <td><div align="center">10</div></td> <td><div align="center">16 to 18</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">(iv)</div></td> <td>Giving broad analysis of rival submissions on maintainability of revision.</td> <td><div align="center">11</div></td> <td><div align="center">18 to 20</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">(v)</div></td> <td>Relevant consideration for correct perspective</td> <td><div align="center">12 to 19</div></td> <td><div align="center">20 to 26</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">(vi)</div></td> <td>Brief exposition of the principle on maintainability of revision</td> <td><div align="center">20 to 24</div></td> <td><div align="center">26 to 31</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">(vii)</div></td> <td>Analysis of case law &ndash; five important judgments</td> <td><div align="center">25 to 62</div></td> <td><div align="center">31 to 57</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">(viii)</div></td> <td>Conclusions on the question of maintainability</td> <td><div align="center">63 to 68</div></td> <td><div align="center">58 to 60</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">(ix)</div></td> <td>Illustrative cases to explain applicability of the above conclusions</td> <td><div align="center">69 to 74</div></td> <td><div align="center">60 to 65</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">(x)</div></td> <td>Discussion on the scope and ambit of the revisional power</td> <td><div align="center">75 to 83</div></td> <td><div align="center">65 to 72</div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">(xi)</div></td> <td>Answers to both the questions with illustrations of revisable orders and orders which are not revisable</td> <td><div align="center">84 to 89</div></td> <td><div align="center">72 to 75</div></td> </tr> </table>

(3.) Writ Petition No.9562 of 2010 challenges the judgment and order dated 29 September 2010 passed by the Small Causes Court, Bombay rejecting application of the petitioner-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint by addition of a party. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent-defendants at the hearing of the writ petition against maintainability of the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the petitioner had an adequate and efficacious alternative remedy available by way of revision under section 34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for brevity "New Rent Act").