JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. -- Heard Shri Saurabh Raj Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Ranjana Devi as also Shri Om Prakash Lohia for the respective respondents in these writ petitions. 2. All these writ petitions involve an identical question and therefore they have been heard and are being decided by a common order. 3. These writ petitions arise out of SCC suits filed by the respondents therein, for arrears of rent, eviction and damages. 4. In these suits, applications under Order 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court are filed by the defendants on the ground that since an intricate question of title was involved, the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to decide the matter and the matter was liable to be decided on the regular side. 5. The Trial Court rejected the applications on the finding that the evidence of the parties was not yet complete and at this stage, the Court was not convinced that an intricate question of title was involved. This order has been affirmed by the revisional Court in the same findings. 6. From the facts noticed above, it emerges that the question as to whether or not the Small Causes Court can decide the dispute raised before it or whether it involves an intricate question of title, decision whereon, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court has not yet been decided finally. This question can be considered afresh after the evidence has been led and the matter is being decided finally. 7. In such view of the matter, I do not consider it expedient to entertain these writ petitions. 8. In the interest of justice, it is further clarified that this issue as to whether or not the suit involves an intricate question of title, which would render suits beyond jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court, may be considered by the Court concerned while deciding the matter finally. 9. Subject to the above, this writ petition is disposed of.