1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3312 OF 2009 Bharatiya Shikshan Mandal, Pune ... Petitioners V/s. Ramchandra Dinkar Shidore & Anr. ... Respondents Mr. Sharad Bhattad i/b. Mr. Parinit Saratkar for the Petitioners. Mr. G.S. Godbole i/b. Ms. Jai V. Kanade for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 19TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. : 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court in Revision Application No.92 of 2008. By this order, the appellate court has set aside the orders passed by the trial court on Exhibits “117” and “118” on 4th November, 2008. The appellate court had directed that the trial should proceed and the parties were directed to act in accordance with the order passed below Exhibit “104”. 2 2. Perusal of the order of the appellate court does not disclose any consideration of the petitioners’ contention that by the order below Exhibit “92” the documents which were sought vide Exhibits “117” and “118” had already been disallowed. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the order of the appellate court must be set aside. 3. Accordingly, the Petition is disposed of by directing the appellate court to consider the Appeal with specific reference to the petitioners’ contention that the orders passed on Exhibits “117” and “118” on 4th November, 2008 are incorrect because the earlier order passed on Exhibit “92”, the application for production of those very documents had been rejected. 4. It is made clear that the petitioners do not challenge the order passed below Exhibit “104”. While considering the petitioners’ objection, the appellate court will also bear in mind the contention of the respondents that the order passed on Exhibits “117” 3 and “118” is only for implementation of the order passed on Exhibit “104”. 5. The appellate court shall dispose of the Appeal within a period of two months from today. ......