- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. This writ petition filed by tenant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 4-3-1997 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition), so far as it relates to rejection of the application paper No. 66 Ga (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) as well as the order dated 27- 1-1997 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that respondent No. 2 is admittedly the landlady of the shop in question and the petitioner was lessee-tenant. THE landlady respondent No. 2 filed suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioner. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the petitioner-tenant filed application 66 Ga which was rejected by order dated 4-3-1997 and also an application by which it was prayed for that interrogatories served on the plaintiff may be directed to be answered by the landlady. It is these two applications which were rejected and suit was directed to be proceeded by respondent No. 1 then this writ petition was filed and this Court vide its order dated 20-5-1997 directed the suit to proceed but the judgment will not be signed till 20-8- 1997. This interim order was extended by this Court vide order dated 20-8-1997 till the next date of listing. THE matter was listed again. When the aforesaid order was extended again by order dated 20-10-1997 till the next date of listing. On 21-11- 1997 the case was listed when this Court directed the case to come up on 22-11- 1997 put up tomorrow. On 22-11-1997 this Court directed the case to be listed in the next cause-list and the interim order was not extended as it is clear from the order dated 22-11-1997 when the case was called upon were not in a position to make a statement regarding the position of the suit as to what happened after 22- 11-1997. So without going further in the matter I am coming to the merits of the order impugned in the present writ petition. The orders impugned in the present writ petition are interlocutory in nature and has not been disputed by learned Counsel for the petitioner about the orders being interlocutory in nature. It is also not disputed that in the event of the suit being ultimately decided against the petitioner, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge these two orders also in case, he challenges the decree passed. In this view of the matter, this Court declines to interfere at this stage with the impugned order as the impugned orders are admittedly interlocutory in nature. This writ petition do not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is dismissed. Interim order/orders, if any, stands vacated. Petition dismissed. .;