(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2581 OF 2011 Guruprasad s/o. Sudhakar Basmatkar, Age : 25 years, Occupation : Education, R/o. Vinayak Niwas, Rani Laxmibai Road, Parbhani, Taluka & District : Parbhani. .. Petitioner. versus Suresh s/o. Chunnilal Sharma, .. Respondents Age : 52 years, (No.1 - Original Occupation : Business, plaintiff, R/o. Subhash Road, No.2 - Original Opp. Balaji Mandir, Parbhani, defendant) Taluka & District : Parbhani, and another. ....................... Mr. V.M. Maney, Advocate, for the petitioner. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 6TH APRIL 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. V.M. Maney, for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18-1-2011, passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parbhani, below Exhibit 34 in Special Civil Suit No. 94/2008. 3. In a suit for specific performance, the petitioner filed application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, claiming that property forming subject matter was ancestral property in which he was having share. The trial court has rejected that application. 4. According to Adv. Maney, for the petitioner, while rejecting that application, some adverse findings are recorded which affect the interest of petitioner prejudicially. 5. I have perused the impugned order. After taking into account all relevant facts and contentions, the trial court has rejected the application. Therefore, there is no jurisdictional error. The application was moved belatedly and, therefore, the trial court has recorded a finding, that the inference that it was an (3) attempt to delay the trial can be drawn. Its other finding, about the own contention of parties is that the suit property is part of a partnership firm by name 'Vyankatesh Traders' and that firm is "admittedly" not a Hindu joint family partnership firm, is only prima facie appreciation of the controversy. These findings are not binding upon the present petitioner who is not party to the suit. 6. I do not see that any prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Petition is, therefore, not entertained. 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2581