IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7359 OF 2008 Shri Namdeo Ganpat Jadhav, Deceased through legal heirs: 1A) Shri Balasaheb Namdeo Jadhav @ Balasaheb Sitaram Bhadale & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Jaiprakash Sitaram Goel & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.R.S.Apte, Sr.Counsel i/b Mr.P.G.Chavan for Petitioners. Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni, Sr.Counsel with Mr.S.R.Nargolkar for Respondent No.7. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JANUARY 13, 2009. JANUARY 13, 2009. JANUARY 13, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. In my opinion, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted in respect of interlocutory and discretionary order passed by the : 2 : Court below. 3. The fact that the impugned order is passed almost after eleven years during the pendency of the Appeal, is of no avail to the Petitioners. The application taken out by the Respondents/original Plaintiffs proceeds on the assertion that recently the Petitioners have started construction activity on the suit property. That was the reason why the application was moved recently. In any case, as the proceedings are pending before the Appellate Court and the case of the Respondents/Plaintiffs if accepted, they would have right at least to the extent of 50% in the suit property. 4. In the circumstances, this Petition is dismissed. The Appellate Court shall, however, expedite the hearing of the appeal to be finally disposed of preferably by end of July 2009. 5. According to the Respondents, the Appeal is already part-heard and is likely to proceed on 9th February 2009. If it is so, the Appellate Court may keep the above observations in mind while : 3 : disposing of the Appeal within specified time. 6. The parties through Counsel assure this Court that necessary cooperation will be extended to the Appellate Court for early disposal of the proceedings. That assurance is accepted. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.