1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. L.P.A. No. 168/2010 in WRIT PETITION NO. 3050/2008 (D) ( Nandlal Madanlal Tibdewal .vs. Smt. Laxmidevi wd/o Gangadhar Agrawal and others ) with L.P.A. No. 205/2010 in WRIT PETITION NO. 2585/2008 (D) ( Manod Nandlal Tibdewal .vs. Smt. Laxmidevi wd/o Gangadhar Agrawal and others ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. B.N. Mohta, Advocate for Appellants Mr. M.G. Sarda, Advocate for Respondents 1 to 3 CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JUNE 14, 2011 Heard. The learned Single Judge has on 25.11.2009 modified the order dated 11.3.2008 passed by the trial Court. The deletion of original plaintiff Laxmidevi (present respondent no.1) has been set aside but transposition of present respondent no.3 Girish as plaintiff has been maintained. According to Advocate Mr. Mohta the transposition is because of the consent decree in Special Civil Suit No.48/2000 to which present appellants are 2 not parties. According to him unless and until that decree is registered and appropriate stamp duty is paid or in the alternate it is impounded, the same cannot be allowed to be used for any other purpose. He contends that by permitting transposition in terms thereof the decree has been allowed to be used and, therefore, the same is not in accordance with the law. He points out that raising all these objections, specific reply was filed objecting to application moved by respondent no.3 Girish and according to him unless and until those objections are decided, the decree cannot be allowed to be used against present appellants. Advocate Mr. Sarda on the other hand contends that all objections raised by appellants are still open and the trial Court can look into the same. With the assistance of the respective counsel, we have perused the impugned order passed by this Court. The effect of appellants not being party to the Special Civil Suit No. 48/2000 or then the effect of non- registration of that decree or non-payment of stamp duty on it can be looked into by the trial Court even today. The order passed by this Court on 25.11.2009 impugned herein also does not prejudice that consideration. In this situation as we do not see anything wrong in the approach of the learned Single Judge, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. However, it is clarified that all objections raised by the appellants before the trial Court in the reply to the decree in Special Civil Suit No. 48/2000 are kept open and shall be 3 considered by the trial Court in accordance with the law and while deciding the suit finally. As the suit is of the year 2000, the trial Court shall attempt to decide the same as early as possible and in any case within a period of one year from the date of the communication of this order to it. With this direction and observation , the LPAs are disposed of. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE halwai