1 906.wp8745.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8745 OF 2011 Abdul Rashid Malik. ....Petitioner. Vs. Jain Khamanchand Bherumal & ors. ....Respondents Mr. A.G.Damle i/b. Mr. Pratap Singh, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. V.P. Vashi i/b. Mr. Pradip Naik, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. R.A. Malandkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- NOVEMBER 16, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Damle, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. Vashi, Advocate for the contesting Respondent. 2. The Application was filed admittedly after closing of entire evidence and only on that ground, the same could have been rejected by the Trial Court. The Marathi version of the rules prima facie appears to be the original version whereas prima facie original English version appears to be translation of the Marathi version. Viewed thus, the question 2 906.wp8745.11 whether Rule 11(2) seeks to project the meaning “popularly” or “properly” will have to be decided by the Trial Court in this context. Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the Petition is not entertained on the ground that it arises out of interlocutory order and such order is capable of being challenged in any proceedings which may be initiated for challenging the final order in the election Petition. Writ Petition is dismissed. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)