1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7537 OF 2008 Ramesh s/o Mansaram Bangad ...Petitioner Versus Sau. Usha Chainsingh Bendurwal ...Respondent ..... Mr. D.K. Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner Mr. A.R. Borulkar, advocate for respondent ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 20TH AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 30.8.2008 passed by the learned C.J.J.D. Aurangabad in an application below Exh.14 in R.D. No.26 of 2008. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though summons was duly served on the respondent, she did not appear and written statement was not filed therefore, matter proceeded and exparte decree came to be passed. Learned counsel further submitted that since the respondent herself did not contest the matter, decree came to be passed partly. The trial court was not 2 justified in staying the execution proceeding merely because M.A.R.J.I. No. 403 of 2008 is pending, filed for setting aside the exparte decree. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned order and submitted that the court below has passed a reasonable order and no interference is called for. 4 At this stage, both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as respondent jointly submitted that without entering into the matter, this petition can be disposed of by directing the court below to dispose of M.A.R.J.I. No. 403 of 2008, within two months from today. 5 In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the concerned Judge to hear and dispose of the M.A.R.J.I. No. 403 of 2008, within two months from today. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. (S.S. SHINDE, J). rlj/