22-WP-5554-2018.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5554 OF 2018 Mohd. Umar Mohd. Suleman and Ors. …Petitioners Vs. Anjuman Tahezeebul Akhlaque and Ors. …Respondents Mr. Narayan R. Bubna a/w. Mr. Aryanraj A. A. for the petitioners. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 9th SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed by three of the original plaintiffs to challenge the order passed by the District Court rejecting their revision application for permission to withdraw the amount deposited by the defendants in the trial court. The trial court has allowed the application filed by the defendants to deposit the arrears of the rent without prejudice to their rights and contentions. The said application was allowed by the trial court with a specific direction that the plaintiffs are precluded from withdrawing the said amount till the decision 1/3 Swapnil 22-WP-5554-2018.docx of the suit. Aggrieved by the said directions the present petitioners had filed the revision application before the District Court. However, the District Court has refused to grant any relief for withdrawing the amount. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit is now at the stage of final hearing. Hence, the petitioners be permitted to withdraw the amount. 3. From the record it appears that out of the total original plaintiffs, only three of the original plaintiffs have filed the revision application and the present writ petition. There is no explanation for not adding the other original plaintiffs as parties to the revision application and the writ petition. 4. The District Court has recorded that the amount was permitted to be deposited under protest. Hence, there was a direction that the amount shall remain deposited in the court. In view of the findings recorded by the trial court permitting deposit under protest, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition only at the behest of three of the original plaintiffs. There is no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and permit only these petitioners to withdraw the amount. There is no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the 2/3 22-WP-5554-2018.docx trial court and the District Court warranting any interference in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. The writ petition, is therefore, rejected. [GAURI GODSE, J.] 3/3