- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION Misc.Application No.2724 of 2005 In Criminal Writ Petition No.1034 of 2005 Vinayak Pandurang Shinde & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents -- Shri Bhavesh Parmar for the petitioners. Shri B.H.Mehta, APP for respondent No.1. Shri Shreepad Murthy for respondent No.2. -- CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & P.V.KAKADE, JJ. DATED : 25th APRIL, 2005. P.C. . Heard. The learned Advocate for the respondent No.2 states that the petitioner Nos.3 and 7 have already settled the matter with the respondent- builder while the learned Advocate for the petitioners states that though the petitioner No.7 has settled the matter with the respondent-builder, there is no final settlement arrived at between the petitioner No.3 and the respondent-builder. It is not necessary for us to go into all these disputed questions of fact. The - 2 - application is merely for seeking extension of time which was granted under the order dated 8th April, 2005. Considering the facts disclosed in the application, such time is extended only for a period of one week to be counted from 22nd April, 2005. Needless to say, as rightly submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondent No.2, that we have not decided any issue sought to be raised in the matter either by the order dated 8th April, 2005 or the order which is being passed today. Time has been granted leaving all the issues between the parties open. The Application stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. ( R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J ) ( P.V.KAKADE, J )