1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4707 of 2005 (Madhukar s/o Raoji Shende and another v. Prabhakar s/o Keshav Sahadeo and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri K.R. Lambat, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri R.T. Anthony, Advocate for Respondent Nos.6 and 7. Coram : R.M. Borde, J. Dated : 11 th June, 2010 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The present petition takes exception to the interlocutory order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, on 1-7-2005, rejecting the application tendered by the petitioner- plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.1464 of 2006. It is rather difficult to ascertain the facts of the matter in controversy, as the copy of the plaint is not annexed to the petition. An application came to be tendered by the petitioner- plaintiffs seeking direction against the defendants to furnish the names of the legal representatives of one of the deceased- defendants. The Trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that the plaintiffs are not in a position to point out any provision of law entitling them to seeks such a direction. I have perused the application as well as the order. As 2 stated above, it is difficult to ascertain the facts, as the copy of the plaint is not annexed to the petition. It is also difficult to ascertain as to what are the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit. It is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiffs that the suit is presented seeking a decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants. If it is so, the decree sought is a personal cause against the surviving defendants. Apart from these aspects, the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiffs is not in a position to point out any rule under the Code of Civil Procedure entitling them to seek a direction. Considering all these aspects and considering the fact that the petition takes exception to the interlocutory order passed during the pendency of the suit, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, no interference is called for. The petition stands dismissed summarily. Judge. pdl.