1 wp7659-11 jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7659 OF 2011 Dnyaneshwar Tukaram Mohol .. Petitioner Versus Sadashiv Narhar Modak and another ... Respondents Mr.R. S. Apte, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. A. A. Garge for the petitioner Mr. R. R. Galange for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Petitioner is present in person Respondent No.1 present in person. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 11th November, 2011 P.C. 1. The above Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order dated 1st July, 2011 passed by the learned 15th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Pune in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 175 of 2010 by which the judgment and order dated 21st April, 2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vadgaon-Maval in regular Civil Suit No. 211 of 2008 came to be confirmed. 2 wp7659-11 2. The learned senior Counsel Mr. Apte, appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, tenders an affidavit of the petitioner dated 11th November, 2011. In the context of the present Petition, paragraph 3 of the said affidavit is material, which is reproduced hereunder: "3. I say that in view of filing of the application for appointment of Court Receiver, I don't want to proceed against the judgment and order dated 1/7/2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 175 of 2010 arising out of the judgment and order dated 21/4/2010 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Vadgaon-Maval, Pune below Application at Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 211 of 2008 by which application below Exh.5 filed by the Respondent herein was allowed. I say that I therefore don't want to press prayer clause (a), (c) and (d) of the above mentioned petition." 3. In view of what is stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn, but the said withdrawal of the Petition is not conditional and the application for appointment of the Court Receiver would be decided by the concerned Court on its own merits and in accordance with law. 4. In so far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, by which the order dated 8th October, 2009 rejecting the application below Exh.27 in Regular Civil Suit No. 211 of 2008 is sought to be quashed and set aside. The said application Exh.27 was filed by the Petitioner herein for clubbing Regular Civil Suit No. 211 of 2008 with Regular Civil Suit 3 wp7659-11 No. 49 of 2009. The said order as can be seen is bereft of any reasons. 5. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the Respondents in the above Petition has no objection if the said Suits are clubbed together as, according to him, if the said Suits are clubbed together, it would be in the interest of both the parties. The impugned order 8th October, 2009 passed below Exh.27 in Regular Civil Suit No. 211 of 2008 is, therefore, quashed and set aside. Consequently, the Regular civil Suit No. 211 of 2008 is clubbed with Regular Civil Suit No. 49 of 2009. Both the suits be placed before the appropriate Court as per directions of the learned District Judge, Pune. Considering the nature of the dispute, hearing of both the above Suits is expedited. 6. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)