IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.699 OF 2009 Sou.Suvarna Shivaji Bandal & Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Bhiku Nana Bandal & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Raju Yamgar for Petitioners. None for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. FEBRUARY 24, 2009. FEBRUARY 24, 2009. FEBRUARY 24, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for Petitioners. 2. In view of the concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts below at this interlocutory stage, no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 3. It was argued before this Court that some of the documents though pertain to 1988 such as FIR registered in respect of incident of theft which : 2 : had taken place in the residence of Defendant No.2 are crucial to consider the point in issue. However, no such case was made out before the two Courts below. It is not open for the Petitioners to come with a new case for the first time in writ jurisdiction. Hence, that argument will have to be rejected. 4. Accordingly, this Petition is dismissed while making it clear that the Trial Court shall decide the Suit on its own merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the opinion recorded in the impugned order which is only for the limited purpose of considering grant of interim relief during the pendency of the Suit. Moreover, it will be open to the Petitioners to rely on such documents as may be advised during the trial, provided the Petitioners have pleaded relevant facts in that behalf. Ordered accordingly. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.