1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2935 OF 2011 Archna w/o Gokul Kathavate Appellant V E R S U S Gaurabai w/o Raghu Shetti Respondent Shri Amol S. Gandhi, Advocate for the appellant Shri K.F. Shingare, Advocate for respondent - sole CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 17th October, 2011 PER COURT : This writ petition is filed against the Judgment and order dated 1st March, 2011, passed by the learned District Judge – 1, Aurangabad, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 232 of 2010. Apparently, the petitioner had no reason to file this writ petition, because the impugned order favours her. After going through the orders passed by the Courts below, I realized that both the orders favour the petitioner, except one thing that instead of saying defendant is permitted to carry on construction etc, the learned Judge of the first appeal Court inadvertently stated that the plaintiff is permitted to carry on construction etc. The word “plaintiff” stands replaced by word “defendant”. In view of above, writ petition stands disposed of. In view of disposal of writ petition, as above, Civil Application No. 12368 of 2011 stands disposed of. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/ 2