(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Letters Patent Appeal No. 5 of 2006 (In Writ Petition No. 103 of 2006) Vishwanath s/o. Dagadu Vidur, Age : - , Occupation : Agriculture, .. Appellant R/o. Ekurga, (Original Taluka & District : Latur. petitioner) versus 1. Venkat s/o. Dagadu Vidur, Age : 57 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 2. Govind s/o. Dagadu Vidur, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 3. Gopal s/o. Dagadu Vidur, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 4. Muktabai w/o. Vasantrao Jagirdar, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Household. 5. Ramakant s/o. Dattu Vidur, Age : 37 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 6. Suresh s/o. Dattu Vidur, Age : 24 years, Occupation : Agriculture. (2) 7. Smt. Yamunabai w/o. Dattu Vidur, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Household. 8. Padminibai w/o. Rajaram Vidur, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Household. 9. Prashant s/o. Govind Vidur, Age : 20 years, Occupation : Agriculture. .. Respondents All R/o. Ekurga, (Original Taluka & District : Latur. respondents) .......................... Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. R.B. Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 to 7 and 9. Respondent no.8 served (Absent). .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 24TH JULY 2009. COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 10th January 2006, passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, in Writ Petition No. 103/2006, thereby dismissing the petition filed by (3) the present appellant. 2. There is a series of litigation between the parties, arising out of a suit for partition filed by the present appellant. It could be seen from the record that vide order dated 25th October 2005, the appellate court had remanded the matter to the trial court and directed the trial court to decide the application at Exhibit 68 afresh. It further appears that while remanding the matter, the appellate court directed status quo to be maintained till 21st November 2005. Since the status quo was directed to be maintained till 21st November 2005 and since the matter, on remand, could not be heard by the trial court since the record was called in this court, vide order dated 7th June 2005, in Writ Petition No. 7324/2004, an application was moved by the present appellant for continuing the status quo. The said application was rejected only on the ground that the application was not tenable. The said order was challenged before this court. Vide order impugned, the learned Single Judge has observed that as the matter was pending before this court, the learned Judge was right in showing his inability to pass such stay order and rightly rejected the application. 3. We find that instead of summarily dismissing the petition vide the impugned order, it would have been appropriate to have heard Writ Petition No. 7324/2004 and Writ Petition No. 103/2006, out of which the present appeal arises, and decided the same together. We find that instead of going into the merits of the matter, it would be appropriate that both the petitions are heard and decided together and till then, the interim relief granted by this court vide order dated 21st September 2006 in Civil Application No. 899/2006, is continued. 4. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. (4) (i) The order dated 10th January 2006, passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, in Writ Petition No. 103/2006, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the present appellant, is quashed and set aside. (ii) The Writ Petition No. 103/2006 is restored to file and the same is directed to be heard and decided along with Writ Petition No. 7324/2004. Parties shall be at liberty to move the learned Single Judge for expeditious disposal of both the petitions. Till the disposal of both the petitions, the interim relief granted by this court vide order dated 21st September 2006 in Civil Application No. 899/2006, shall continue. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/lpa5