1 wp10678.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10678 OF 2010 Vinayak Vishwanathrao Deshmukh & Ors ...petitioners Versus Usha w/o Vithalrao Deshmukh (Patil) & Ors. ...Respondents ..... Mr. P.D. Suryawanshi, advocate for the petitioners ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 2ND DECEMBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 28.9.2010 passed by the 9th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Latur below Exh.71 in R.C.S. No. 84 of 2009. 2 Counsel for the petitioners submits that two main points were argued before the trial court. Firstly since the partition is already effected and there is no question of another partition. Secondly, since original plaintiffs, who are real sisters of present petitioners got married before 1994, therefore, the plaint may be returned on these two grounds. However, erroneously, the trial court has rejected the said application. The learned counsel further invited my attention to the reported judgment of this Court in the case of Lata @ Bhagyashree 2 wp10678.10 Arunkumar Sangole Vs. Madhukar Rajaram Ganjare and Ors., reported in 2008 (6) Bom. C.R. 445, and more particularly para 16 of the said judgment and submitted that since sisters are married prior to 1994, they are not entitled to partition. Therefore, counsel would submit that this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 3 Upon hearing counsel for the petitioners and upon perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that in para 11 of the impugned order, the trial court has considered first submission of the petitioners that earlier there was partition and same issue is subjudiced before this court in Second Appeal. Therefore, the trial court negatived the contention of the petitioners that already there is partition in view of the pendency of the said issue before this Court. 4 Coming to the second contention of the petitioners that the plaintiffs have married prior to 1994 and therefore, they are not entitled for partition is concerned, the said point very well can be argued at the time of final disposal of the suit. It is not in dispute that original plaintiffs respondents-herein are real sisters of the petitioners. Therefore, in my opinion, no interference is warranted at this stage. Hence, writ petition stands dismissed. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/ 3 wp10678.10