IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 320 OF 2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 41 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 74 OF 2007 IN PETITION NO. 871 OF 2007. U.Raghvendra Acharya & Anr.. ..... ...... ......Appellants V/s Arvind Sitaram Iyer, the Constituted Attorney of Narindra Sitaram Iyer ...... ......Respondent. And Union of India.... .... .....Respondent. Mr.R.M.Nakhwa, Adv. For the appellants. Mr.T.G.Vora, Adv. For the respondent. Mrs.Purnima Awasthi, Adv. For Union of India. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED: 6th AUGUST 2008. PC: Learned counsel appearing for the respective parties state that this appeal could be disposed of by an agreed order. However the agreed order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents that the present appeal is not maintainable. We leave this question open. 1 2. In the impugned order learned Judge has noticed that : “Harendra Sitaram Iyer is not a party to the petition. In the circumstances, such a direction cannot be issued in the present petition. Hence prayer clause (a) cannot be granted.” This observation of the learned Judge may not be maintainable in the facts of the present case. 3. Counsel for respective parties state that these lines be deleted and the matter be placed before the learned Single Judge for appropriate orders in relation to prayer (a) made in the Chamber Summons. Prayer (b) is already complied with as recorded in the order. Order accordingly. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. Matter be placed before the learned Single Judge. Civil Application, if any, does not survive. CHIEF JUSTICE A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 2