1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10078 OF 2009 Vedu Shankarrao Bankar Petitioner versus Smt.Krishnabai shankarrao Bankar and others Respondents Ramesh Dubey Patil i/by M/s.Jay & Co. for petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 21st April 2010 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. A decree for partition and separate possession was passed in the suit filed by the petitioner declaring that the petitioner along with the first and second respondents have got 6/28th undivided share each in the suit property and third and fourth respondents have got 1/28th undivided share each in the suit property. An application was made at the instance of the respondents before the Trial Court for issuing precept under section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. An order was passed on 19th November 2007 for sending the papers to the Collector for effecting partition. An application was made by the petitioner for recalling the said order which has been rejected by the impugned order. 2 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the respondents had filed a substantive suit for partition which has been unconditionally withdrawn. He submitted that there was no counter claim made by the respondents in the suit filed by the petitioner and the respondents have not sought partition. He, therefore, submitted that the application made by the respondents for sending precept was not maintainable and the Trial Court ought to have recalled the impugned order which has been passed on the said application. 3. I have considered the submissions. In the decree passed in the suit, the shares of all the concerned have been declared. In a suit for general partition, all the parties are in position of a plaintiff. It is true that necessary court fees will have to be paid by the respondents. However, that is not the ground for challenging the order under section 54 of the said Code. On the basis of the decree passed in the suit filed by the petitioner, the Court had no choice but to perform an administrative act of forwarding the papers to the Collector. No case for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. Subject to what is observed above, the writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)