MP 1 WP1028_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1028 OF 2011 Vasant Janardhan Sathe and another ... Petitioners Versus Mrs. Sujata Vishnu Sathe and others ... Respondents Mr. S. S. Shah for Petitioners. Mr. A. B. Tajane for Respondents. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. MONDAY, 2nd MAY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : The petition challenges the order dated 6th December 2010 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for issuance of summons to Gaokamgar Talathi came to be rejected. 2. In an unfortunate incident, the son of the petitioner who was a husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 died about three years ago. Accordingly, the respondents filed an application for issuance of a Heirship certificate. In the said proceedings, the present petitioners have also been impleaded as party respondents. After the evidence of the respondents was complete and the matter was fixed for the evidence of the present petitioners, the application, as aforesaid, came to be filed by the present petitioners. The same is rejected. MP 2 WP1028_11 3. On the first date of hearing, Mr. Shah, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the matter is between the close relatives, if the notice is issued, it will enable the parties to settle the dispute. Accordingly, notice was issued by this Court vide order dated 30th March 2011. On the last date, the parties were directed to remain present today, and the matter was directed to be heard in Chambers. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner No. 1 so also the respondents are present in the Court. The respondent No. 1 states that her only anxiety is to get issued heirship certificate at the earliest so that she can get a job on compassionate ground since her husband was working in M.S.E.B. She submits that she is not interested in the monetary gains. However, it is her submission that since her deceased husband had taken a loan for construction of house, the said loan is outstanding and she would repay the loan from the receipts of the service benefits of her deceased husband. The petitioner No. 1 states that he is willing to look after his grand children. However, the respondent No. 1 is tutoring the grand- children against him. 5. The petition is purely against an interlocutory order, and that, too in the proceedings regarding grant of heirship certificate. Proceedings are purely summary in nature. By no stretch of imagination, the evidence of Gaokamgar Talathi would be relevant for deciding the issue before the learned Trial Court. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. The petition is rejected. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that, the heirship certificate will be necessary for the respondent No. 1 so as to apply for appointment on compassionate ground, the learned Trial Court is MP 3 WP1028_11 directed to dispose off the said proceedings within a period of two months from today in any case. It is made clear that no adjournments to any of the parties would be granted. It is further made clear that the requests by the learned Counsel for extension of time would also not be entertained by the learned Trial Court. 7. In the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. (B.R. GAVAI, J)