1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 724 OF 2010 (Raosaheb Ramdas Charhate vs. Sau. Surekha Sandeep Charhate & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. FEBRUARY 23, 2010. Heard Shri Lalwani, learned counsel for the petitioner - plaintiff and Shri Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondents – defendants. In RCS No. 50 of 2006 filed by present petitioner, one of the issues was whether the transactions in question in suit were contrary to provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. The petitioner filed an application to stay the suit till this issue was finally decided. The application was opposed by present respondents/ defendants. On 30.12.2009, Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Anjangaon Surji, has rejected that application after noticing that the plaintiff was trying to pull on the matter and he has moved the application when the case was at the stage of final arguments. It also noticed that issue regarding fragment was decided by Mamlatdar Court i.e. competent authority. It is not in dispute that further challenge to 2 that order is now pending in revision before the Divisional Commissioner. Thus, reasons shown by the trial Court are not demonstrated to be either erroneous or perverse. It is, therefore, apparent that no case is made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction in the matter. If the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, give finality to some orders that finality can be taken into consideration by Civil Court at any time during the pendency of proceedings before it. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.