1 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2299 OF 2010 Indrapal Bala Patil & Others ...Petitioners vs. Mangalprabhat Gumanmal Lodha & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.S.A.Oak i/b Mr.Sagar Joshi for the petitioners Mr.Vineet Naik i/b M/s.Kanga & Co. for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : APRIL 28, 2010 P.C.: 1 Taken up for final disposal at admission stage. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 on instructions stated that a direction be issued to the Appellate Court not to consider the documents allowed to be produced under the impugned order for the purpose of deciding the application at Exhibit-5 (for interim relief in appeal) which is already heard. He states that the said application at Exhibit-23 under Rule 27 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 be heard afresh and may be decided before the Appeal is heard on merits. The suggestion made by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 is reasonable which deserves to be accepted. 2 Hence, the petition is disposed of by passing following order : i) While deciding the application at Exhibit-5 in Miscellaneous Appeal no.25 of 2010, the learned District Judge will not consider the documents which were allowed to be produced under the impugned order 2 dated 19 th March 2010. ii)The order passed on application below Exhibit-23 which is impugned in this petition is set aside only on the grounds hat the petitioners had no adequate opportunity to file a reply to the said application. The petitioners will file a reply to the application at Exhibit-23 on or before 8 th June 2010. Thereafter, the learned District Judge will proceed to decide the said application on merits. iii)Petition is disposed of in above terms. JUDGE