Mr. Vinod Mohanlal Jain v. Mr. Ruhin Khambhata & Ors.

Mr. Vinod Mohanlal Jain Mr. Ruhin Khambhata & Ors. .. Petitioner .. Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 6632 OF 2009 Mr. Vinod Mohanlal Jain Francis Fernandes & Ors. .. Petitioner .. Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 6633 OF 2009 Mr. Vinod Mohanlal Jain Mr. Deendayal Jeetbahadur Varma .. Petitioner .. Respondent AND WRIT PETITION NO. 6634 OF 2009 Mr. Vinod Mohanlal Jain Mr. Gerald Martez & Anr. .. Petitioner .. Respondents Mr. R.A. Thorat & Ms. Vrushali Tapkir, Advocate for the Petitioner. .. CORAM: A.S.OKA,J DATE: 4th September, 2009. 2 wp 6631.2009+3.sxw P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is the plaintiff in suits filed for eviction under section 16(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Applications were made by the petitioner before the trial Judge for expediting the hearing of the suits. By the impugned orders, the said applications have been rejected. 2 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as a result of the pendency of the suits, the entire scheme of redevelopment undertaken by the petitioner has been stalled and the other tenants/occupants of the property are adversely affected because of the delay. 3 The suits are of the year 2007. The orders passed by the trial court rejecting the prayer for expediting the hearing of the suits are discretionary orders. No interference can be made in such orders in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4 Writ Petitions are rejected. However, it will be open for the petitioner to apply afresh before the trial court for expediting the hearing of the suits. Such applications can be made after expiry of a period of six months from today. If 3 wp 6631.2009+3.sxw such applications are made, the trial court shall decide the same on merits without being influenced by this order. If the issues are not yet framed, the trial court will proceed to frame the issues. Judge.