1 FARAD CONSTITUTION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3524/2009 (Shamsuddin Sheikh .vs. Sheikh Nizamuddin and others) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE:- NOVEMBER 04, 2009 Heard learned Advocate Shri M. Anil Kumar for petitioner. His apprehension is the finding of Appellate Court in impugned order dated 30/6/2009, that the High Court had directed defendant No.1 only to deposit an amount of Rs.2000/- per month, will operate as res-judicata. He states that defendant No.1 has already expired. With his assistance, I have perused the order dated 16/7/2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 4352/2002. Perusal of order clearly shows that petitioners before High Court were directed to deposit the amount. However, it is pointed out to this Court that there was only one petitioner and an affidavit, undertaking to deposit the amount, was filed by original defendant No.2 – Shaikh Sirajuddin, who was respondent in that writ petition. The said affidavit was 2 filed by him pointing out that petitioner was running business of eating house with respondent Nos.2 to 4 and entire affidavit shows that it was on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4. In these circumstances, it is apparent that learned Appellate Court has only found that because of High Court orders, it was not necessary for it to again pass independent order in the matter. Learned trial court has not, in any way, attempted to overwrite or supersede the orders of High Court. The orders of High Court are in favour of the present petitioner and because of said orders, his interest is well protected. No prejudice is, therefore, caused to him by impugned order dated 30/6/2009. The petitioner is at liberty to execute the High Court order in accordance with law. In view of this position, I find no case warranting interference in the impugned order, in writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is, therefore, disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE diwale.