JUDGMENT
N.K. Jain, C.J.
1. This Appeal is filed against the order dated 22.10.2003 passed in W.P.No. 38353/2003 whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the Writ Petition with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The learned Counsel has deposited the costs.
2. The land lord-respondent filed O.S.No. 378/2002 for ejectment of the tenant and also for arrears of rent. The tenant filed written statement. Later on the tenant filed I.A.No. 4 for amendment of the written statement to take up an additional plea regarding jurisdiction. The said amendment application was rejected by the trial Judge. The said order of the trial Judge was challenged in the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge on consideration rejected the Writ Petition.
3. The grievance of the appellant is that while disposing of the Writ Petition, the learned Single Judge has gone into the merits of the case which was not required and would prejudice his case in the appeal.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that after the disposal of the Writ Petition, the main suit has been disposed of and the tenant has filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree. Under the circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge needs no interference.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. When the matter is pending in appeal before the appellate Court, we find no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. But, it is made clear that the observation made by the learned Single Judge regarding jurisdiction will not come in the way of the tenant-appellant while considering the issue pending in appeal in the Civil Judge’s Court (Sr.Dn), Mysore. With the above observation this writ appeal is disposed of.