(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5551 OF 2009 1. Bhaskar Shivram Kote, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 2. Smt. Anjanabai Madhav Gondkar, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture. 3. Ashok Madhav Gondkar, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture. 4. Sau. Usha Raosaheb Bhosale, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture. All of the above R/o. Shirdi, .. Petitioners Taluka : Rahata, (Original District : Ahmednagar. defendants) versus 1. Kailas Bhausaheb Kote, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Business. 2. Vishwas Bhausaheb Kote, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Business. (2) 3. Uttam Bhaurao Katkar, Age : 61 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 4. Sahebrao Bhaurao Katkar, Age : 49 years, Occupation : Agriculture. Reubai Bhaurao Katkar, Deceased. 5. Bhamabai Bhaurao Katkar, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 6. Bhamabai Vilas Raut, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture. 7. Bhimabai Pandharinath Shelke, Age : 70 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 8. Sopan Kashinath Gondkar, Age : 63 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 9. Smt. Deobai Yadav Sabale, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture. 10. Smt. Chandrakala Yadav Sabale, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture. (3) Pandharinath Parsharam Shelke, Deceased. 11. Bhimabai Pandharinath Shelke, Age : 72 years, Occupation : Household. 12. Ravindra Pandharinath Shelke, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 13. Arvind Pandharinath Shelke, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 14. Prakash Pandharinath Shelke, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture. All of the above respondent nos.1 to 14, R/o. Shirdi, Taluka : Rahata, District : Ahmednagar. 15. Ravsaheb Bhausaheb Kote, Age : 25 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. House No. 88, Devpur, At & Post : Dhule, .. Respondents District : Dhule. (Nos.1 & 2 - Original plaintiffs, 16. Nanda Balasaheb Kapse, Nos.3 to 16 - Age : Major, Original defendants) Occupation : Household, R/o. Rahata Pimplas, Taluka : Rahata, District : Ahmednagar. (4) .......................... Mr. S.D. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 26TH NOVEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By consent, taken up for final hearing. 2. Since no order prejudicial to the interest of respondent nos.3 to 16 is being passed, notice upon rule, on the said respondents is waived. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 14th July 2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kopargaon, below Exhibit 635 in Special Civil Suit No. 28/1991, by which the trial court has observed that in view of Order VII Rule 14, Sub-rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it cannot be said that copies of the documents, on which the plaintiffs rely, should be submitted to the other side. (5) 4. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 (original plaintiffs), makes a statement that in pursuance to the order passed herein above, evidence of the parties is already recorded and the matter is kept for hearing. He further makes a statement that the plaintiffs have no objection for delivery of the copies of the documents sought for by the petitioners. 5. In that view of the matter, grievance of the petitioners no more survives. In the light of that, the petition is disposed of and the rule is discharged. Needless to state, that the interim relief, granted earlier, stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp5551