1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2274 OF 2010 (Kisanchand Gurumukhdas Dudhani & Ors. vs. Kishor Ganpatrao Mogre & Ors.) AND WRIT PETITION NO. 2275 OF 2010 (Kisanchand Gurumukhdas Dudhani & Ors. vs. Kishor Ganpatrao Mogre & Ors.) 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. AUGUST 03, 2010. Heard Shri De, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Anilkumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. Writ Petition No. 2274 of 2010 challenges the order passed by the Appellate Court rejecting interim prayer in MCA No. 79 of 2009. MCA arises out of Regular Darkhast No. 8 of 1992. This Court has on 06.05.2010 protected the possession of the petitioner and issued notice for final disposal. The petitioner was also asked to deposit certain amount to show his bonafides and accordingly amount of Rs.90,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner with the Executing Court. In these circumstances, I find that interest of justice can be met with by permitting the appellate Court to adjudicate MCA No. 79 of 2009 further on merits in time bound manner. 2 Accordingly, the Court of District Judge – 2, Chandrapur, is directed to decide MCA No. 79 of 2009 itself on merits as expeditiously as possible and in any case by 31st October 2010. Till then, interim orders passed by this Court shall continue to operate. The entitlement to amount in deposit shall be decided by Executing Court. WRIT PETITION NO. 2275 OF 2010 The Objectors have challenged the rejection of their application under Order 26, Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code. The Objectors – petitioners wanted to demonstrate that 0.20 Hectare of land forming subject matter of execution is not at all in existence. He also for that purpose challenges the earlier findings. It is obvious that the objection of the petitioners on merits has been rejected and it forms subject matter of MCA No. 79 of 2009, which has been expedited by this Court today. To show his locus and status, the petitioners/ objectors have to demonstrate prima facie the correctness of their contention about said 0.20 Hectare of land. The question, therefore, has to be gone into by the appellate Court in MCA No. 79 of 2009. The correctness or otherwise of request of the petitioners for appointment of the Commissioner to ascertain this aspect therefore forms subject matter of that MCA, I therefore find that the aspect need not be considered further in present writ petition. However, in 3 case of any confusion, the petitioners are given liberty to move trial Court again, if MCA No. 79 of 2009 is adjudicated in their favour. With these observations, both Writ Petitions are disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.