SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6121 OF 2008 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6125 OF 2008 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6126 OF 2008 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6132 OF 2008 Joy Frozen Foods Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Vikas Madangopal Tulsian & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.P.G.Lad for Petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Patil, Sr.Counsel with Mr.I.A.Shaikh for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. SEPTEMBER 2, 2008. SEPTEMBER 2, 2008. SEPTEMBER 2, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Having regard to the finding recorded by the lower Court, in particular, paragraphs 19 and 20 of the impugned Judgment, the conclusion reached by the Court below in rejecting the Application : 2 : preferred by the Petitioner for striking out defence of the Defendant and accepting the application filed by the Defendant was inevitable. That is the correct approach adopted by the Court below on the opinion recorded that the interse claim will have to be adjusted at the appropriate state. No interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted. Dismissed. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner be permitted to file further application for recovery of future compensation. That can be possible only after the amount already receivable by the Defendant is adjusted. Besides, Counsel for the Respondent has invited my attention to paragraph 2(a) of the operative order which makes that provision. Hence, no further directions in that behalf would be necessary. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.