1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8105 OF 2007 Vinay Rathi .. Petitioner Versus Ramgopal Gupta & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Vinay Rathi in person Mr.B.S.Mehta for respondents. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19th March 2008 P.C. . There is no need to entertain this petition because what is under challenge is an interlocutory order. The petitioner has sought clarification of an earlier order dated 18th 2 November 2004, which clarification has not been made to the satisfaction of the petitioner and that is why this petition. 2. During the course of arguments, decree holder brings to my notice the fact that the decree is of the year 1991 and the petitioner is avoiding execution and implementation of the same by taking out one proceeding or the other. It is brought to my notice that two appeals being Appeal Nos. 221 and 222 of 2003 and Revision Application Nos. 32 and 71 of 1996 are pending on the file of Small Causes Court. Merely because some proceeding is pending, the petitioner does not cooperate with the hearing of appeals and revision applications. 3. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that interest of justice be sub-served if the Appeal Nos. 221 and 222 of 2003 so also the revision application No.32 and 71 of 1996 are 3 directed to be heard and disposed of as expeditiously as possible and within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order. Petition disposed of. No costs. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. This order is passed by consent of parties. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)