Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1942 of 2009 Rashid Suleman ...Petitioner v/s. Radha L. Chhabria & ors. ...Respondents Mangesh Patel i/b. Kanchan More for the petitioner. Rekha Shukla for respondent no.1. Fazal Theba i/b. Theba & Associates for respondents 2 & 3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 2ND MARCH, 2009 : 2ND MARCH, 2009 : 2ND MARCH, 2009 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. According to Petitioner, the case made out by the Petitioner clearly falls within the parameter provided in clause (aa) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. For that, reliance is placed on Paragraph 6 & 7 of the application at page-58. Even on fair reading of the said averments no case of due diligence is made out. Besides, no fault can be found with the opinion recorded by the Lower Court in Paragraph 11 of the impugned Judgment. 3. Hence, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted in respect of discretionary order. 2 4. Assuming that there is some error of jurisdiction committed by the lower Court in the impugned order, however, indubitably the same is capable of being corrected at a later stage. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai & ors. v/s. Ram Surya Dev Rai & ors. v/s. Ram Surya Dev Rai & ors. v/s. Ram Chander Chander Chander Rai & ors. reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675, Rai & ors. reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675, Rai & ors. reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675, in particular, in Paragraph 39, that the wrong done, if any, could be set right and the rights and equities can be adjusted in appeal or revision preferred at the conclusion of the proceedings, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. Hence, Dismissed. 5. Needless to observe that all questions raised in the present Petition are kept open to be agitated by the Petitioners in the appeal or revision to be preferred against the final decision at the conclusion of the proceedings which will have to be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]