1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 4316 of 2007 (Smt. Nilabai w/o Narayandas Jakhotiya & ors. Vs. Smt. Rampyaribai wd/o Sukhdeo Daga & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. M.G. Bhangde, Senior Counsel, with Mr. V.V. Bhangde, Adv. For the petitioners. Mr. S.P. Deshpande, Adv. For the respondents. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 10 th December, 2008 Shri Bhangde, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, seeks liberty to withdraw the writ petition so far as it impugns the order passed by the District Judge, Amravati, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 23/2006, with liberty to file a fresh petition challenging the same. Permission and liberty both are granted as prayed for. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amravati, below Exh. 83 on 6/8/2007, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for a direction to the 2 respondents to elect one of the two applications at Exh. 37 or Exh. 46 for their claim of restoration of their so called possession. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Senior Counsel that two identical prayers were made by the respondents, one in Exh. 37 and the other in Exh. 46, seeking a direction to the petitioners to restore the possession of the respondents and also to remove the tin-sheds and the fencing erected by the petitioners on the suit plot. In view of these identical prayers made by the respondents in two separate applications, according to the learned Senior Counsel, it became necessary for the petitioners to file an application to elect the claim of restoration from any one of the two applications at Exh. 37 and Exh. 46. The trial Court, however, by the impugned order dated 6th of August, 2007, had rejected the application filed by the petitioners on the ground that the application filed by the petitioners was not tenable. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, the respondents have presented a 3 civil application in this Court today, seeking permission to delete the prayer clause no.2 in Exh. 37. The civil application is accepted on record. The prayer made in the civil application is hereby granted. By the grant of the prayer in the civil application, the prayer made by the petitioners in this writ petition also stands virtually granted and the application filed by the petitioners for direction to the respondents to elect a prayer clause in one of the applications Exh. 37 and Exh. 46, in effect, stands allowed. In view of the grant of the prayer made by the respondents in the civil application dated 10/12/2008, the impugned order passed by the trial Court on 6/8/2007 would not survive. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP