(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3614 OF 2010 Govardhan @ Govindlal s/o. Bansilal Sarda, Age : 47 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Lohar Galli, Old Mondha, Nanded, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Sou. Jyoti w/o. Madhusudan Baheti, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Old Mondha, Nanded. 2. Rahul s/o. Madhusudan Baheti, Age : 20 years, Occupation : Education, R/o. as above. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.V. Deshpande, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15TH MARCH 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. S.B. Talekar, for the petitioner, and Adv. Mr. M.V. Deshpande, for the respondents. 2. In pending Second Appeal, after death of appellant, because of dispute between various applicants as to the status of legal representatives, an inquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 of CPC was ordered. Learned 8th Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nanded, has disposed of that inquiry on 16-7-2009. 3. According to Adv. Mr. S.B. Talekar, finding recorded therein is contrary to law as the property after the death of Zumbrabai vested in father of the present petitioner, namely, Bansilal and after death of Bansilal, in the present petitioner. In this view of the matter, according to him, nobody else could have been conferred with the status of legal representative. 4. Adv. Mr. M.V. Deshpande, for the respondents, points out that the petitioner is already party respondent in Second Appeal and he can raise these contentions before appellate court. He further contends that if the petitioner is allowed to come on record as legal representative of deceased appellant Krishnabai, the lis in Second Appeal itself comes to an end. (3) 5. The purpose of inquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 of CPC is limited and if there is any lis inter se between the petitioner and the legal heirs / legal representatives found by the trial court, the same can be adjudicated upon by the competent court in accordance with law. The result of inquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 does not confer any additional right or elevated status upon legal representatives. 6. The other contentions of Adv. Mr. Talekar form subject matter of Second Appeal and can be raised by him before that court. 7. In view of these observations, Adv. Mr. Talekar, for the petitioner, seeks leave to withdraw the petition. Adv. Mr. Deshpande, for the respondents, is opposing leave for withdrawal of the petition. 8. However, leave to withdraw the petition is granted. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE bgp/wp3614