IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4102 OF 2008 Dattaram Dharma Mayekar ...Petitioner Versus Abhimanyu Dharma Mayekar & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.S.M.Railkar i/b Mr.Pankaj J.Das for Petitioner. None for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. AUGUST 7, 2008. AUGUST 7, 2008. AUGUST 7, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. I am in agreement with the opinion expressed in the impugned Judgment by the Trial Court that the issue brought before it by way of Application Exhibit 105 was already covered by the findings recorded on the earlier occasion while disposing of Exhibits 77, 89 and 99 claiming similar reliefs herein. : 2 : 3. The Petitioner, however, contends that the Petitioner had assailed the correctness of the order passed below Exhibit 99 by way of Writ Petition No.3626 of 2007, which however was disposed of on 13th February 2008 on the ground that it had become infructuous. 4. The fact remains that the order passed below Exhibits 77 and 89 have remained unchallenged. So long as the finding recorded while rejecting those applications are operating and have become final, the same will bind the parties even though made at the interlocutory stage. Thus understood, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to ask for similar relief without questioning the correctness of finding recorded by the Trial Court in Order passed below Exhibits 77 and 89 in any case. 5. Hence, this Petition is dismissed. However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the Suit as High Court Expedited Case, to be finally disposed of preferably before : 3 : 8th March 2009. 6. The parties to the Suit shall extend full cooperation to the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the Suit. All questions in the Suit on merits are left open to be answered uninfluenced by the impugned order or for that matter, the present order. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.