1 wp 4827.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4827 OF 2011 Ashiwinkumar Sureshchandra Lalwani And Anr. .. Petitioners VERSUS Rajaram Girraj Sharma And Anr .. Respondent Shri Manish N. Navandar, Advocate for Petitioners. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 06TH JULY, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioners are original plaintiffs. The suit of the petitioners came to be dismissed against which an appeal is filed. During the pendency of appeal application Exhibit 11 was filed by the petitioners seeking stay of the further proceedings of the appeal in view of the pendency of the Writ Petition No. 3121/2004 and W. P. No. 4959/2004. The District Judge – 5 rejected the said application. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 2 wp 4827.11 2. Shri Navandar, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that in fact, when the writ petitions are pending before this Court, the lower Appellate Court should not proceed with the proceedings in the appeal. For the said purpose the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single of this Court in a case of Kishor Bhikansingh Rajput Vs. Preeti Kishor Rajput reported in 2007 (3) Bom.C.R. 279. 3. The learned counsel further contended that there is a change in situation, when the prayer for stay was refused in Writ Petition No. 3112/2003, 3121/2004. Now the suit has been decided and the appeal is pending and said prayer was made in the appeal, as such according to the learned counsel the orders passed in said petition would not be an impediment to consider the application Exhibit 41 filed in the appeal. The learned counsel further contends that if the appeal is disposed of and subsequently writ petitions are allowed, then the petitioners would be put in irreversible position and would lead to anomalous situation. As such, the learned counsel submits that the proceedings before the lower Appellate Court be stayed. 4. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have gone through 3 wp 4827.11 the orders passed earlier in the Writ Petition No. 3112/2004 and 3121/2004. This Court in the said writ petitions has specifically refused the prayer for stay of the proceedings in the suit. Appeal is continuation of the proceedings of the suit. Moreover, when in the substantial writ petitions no orders of stay are passed, propriety does not allow this Court to pass orders staying the proceedings. In view of the above, the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Kishor Bhikansing Rajput referred supra and relied by the learned counsel would be of no assistance to the petitioners. 5. In the light of above no error can be found in the order impugned in this petition. As such, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11