1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3926 OF 2009 Shri Moreshwar Bhalchandra Joshi. .. Petitioner Vs Smt. Kashibai Vasantrao Jagdale & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri T.D. Deshmukh for the Petitioner. Shri S.H. Yadav for the Respondents. -- CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : 22ND JANUARY, 2010 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. During the pendency of this suit, an application was made by the fourth Respondent herein. By the impugned order passed on the said application, the said Respondent has been permitted to withdraw the sugarcane bill amount of Rs.2,08,489/- against furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.2,20,000/-. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the withdrawal of the amount by Respondent No.4 has been permitted only on the ground that nobody else had applied for withdrawal of the amount. He submitted that the Petitioner is desirous of applying for the same. He submitted that no finding is recorded that the fourth Respondent is in possession. 2 3. I have considered the submissions. Till the impugned order was passed, the Petitioner never applied for withdrawal of the amount. The withdrawal of the amount of Rs.2,08,489/-is permitted on furshing a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.2,20,000/- and on further condition to deposit the amount as and when ordered by the Court. Even in the order passed on the application for temporary injunction, there was no finding recorded that the Petitioner is cultivating the suit land. The parties to the suit have been more than adequately protected by directing the fourth Respondent to furnish a bank guarantee. 4. No case is made out for interference with the impugned order. Petition is rejected. It is however made clear that before the bank guarantee is accepted and withdrawal of the amount is permitted, the parties to the suit shall be heard by the learned trial Judge. Hearing of the suit is expected and the same shall be disposed of on or before 31st August, 2010. JUDGE