1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1740 OF 2010 (Pritesh N. Thakkar & Anr. vs. Pravin G. Lakhotia) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JULY 20, 2010. Heard Ms. Mahashabde, Advocate holding for Shri Upadhye, learned counsel for the petitioner. She is seeking adjournment. There was no appearance for the petitioner on 05.07.2010, hence her request is rejected. Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent states that the plaintiff has not under valued the suit. He states that the valuation is made as per relationship between parties and after effecting forfeiture. He has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Hiranand vs. Mohandas, reported at 1977 Mh. L.J. 501 and Ram Narain Prasad vs. Atul Chander Mitra, reported at (1994) 4 SCC 349 to urge that valuation as shown by the respondent is correct. He further points out that in any case the issue is left open in the impugned order by the trial Court. The perusal of impugned order shows that the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner – defendant but has kept open the point for proper adjudication and it is observed that said point 2 will be decided at final adjudication. Therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner at this stage. It is made clear that the findings adverse to the interest of the petitioner recorded in the impugned order shall not influence the trial Court when it reconsiders that issue at the stage of final adjudication. With these observations and directions, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.