Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. This civil revision application challenges the order dated 29-10-2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dharni, rejecting the objection filed by the appl icant/defendant regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Dharni to entertain, try and decide Regular Civil Suit No.21 of 2010 claiming the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in the mandatory form.

3. Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant/ plaintiff, has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this civil revision application. He submits that if this civil revision application is allowed by this Court, then the proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No.21 of 2010 pending before the Trial Court would not be finally disposed of, as contemplated by the proviso to Section 115(I) of the Civil Procedure Code. According to him, at the most, this Court would pass an order, as contemplated by Order 7, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for return of plaint for its presentation before the proper Court, and it cannot be termed as a "disposal of the suit" within the meaning of the proviso to Section 115(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. He submits that the term "finally disposed of the suit" used in the proviso to Section 115(1) means "dismissal of the suit" or "passing of a decree in favour of plaintiff'.

4. The proviso to Section 115(1) of the Civil Procedure Code being relevant, is reproduced below:

" Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings."

Under the aforesaid provision, the High Court cannot vary or reverse any order made. or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceedings, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. The Legislature has consciously used the term "finally disposed of the suit" and the words "dismissal" or "passing of decree in favour of plaintiff" are not used. The word "disposal" also includes the disposal of other proceedings and it would include the disposal of the suit as per Order 7, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. If this civil revision application is allowed, then the suit is required to be disposed of in accordance with Order 7, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, and so far as the Court at Dharni is concerned, the proceedings of the suit would come to an end. In view of this, the objection that the present civil revision application is not maintainable, is rejected.

5. On the merits of the matter, the relief of quashing the rejection letter bearing reference No. NLRO/MBI/LPG, dated 5-112009 issued under the signature of Shri M.B. Ingole is claimed, and the declaration is sought that the said rejection letter is inoperative and non est in the eyes of law. The further relief is claimed that the non-applicant/ plaintiff be held entitled for distributorship of LPG for township of Dharni, District Amravati. The mandatory injunction is claimed that the non-applicant/plaintiff is entitled for distributorship. The prohibitory injunction is also claimed against the applicant/defendant from committing breach of its own policy, promise and representation. Para 17 regarding cause of action contained in the plaint is reproduced below:

"17. That, the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court as dealership is pertaining to township at Dharani, so also it is to function at Dharani and hence the Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try the suit with cause of action having arisen herein as above. When plaintiff read the advertisement in 'Lokmat' firstly on 61 9/07