bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 640 OF 2001 APPLICATION NO. 640 OF 2001 APPLICATION NO. 640 OF 2001 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4316 OF 2000 PETITION NO. 4316 OF 2000 PETITION NO. 4316 OF 2000 Shri Shankar Appa Chaugule ... Applicant v/s 1. Shri Anandrao Bhausaheb Phadtare 2. Shri Jyotiram Tukaram Damame ... Respondents Mr.T.S.Ingale for the applicant. Mr.Pratap Patil for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 14TH OCTOBER, 2008 14TH OCTOBER, 2008 14TH OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. Several prayers are sought by the petitioner in the present civil application. The petitioner has sought a stay of the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur in Revision Application No.MRT/107/B/99. On 19.4.2001, while admitting the petition, this Court has observed that the 1st respondent was directed not to take any steps based on the order passed in his favour by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in the aforesaid case. In my opinion, therefore, prayer (a) can be granted to the petitioner. 2 2. Prayer clauses (b) and (c) have become infructuous. 3. As regards prayer clause (d), the petitioner has sought permission to add respondent No.2 in the civil application as a party to the writ petition. The respondent No.1 has allegedly sold the land to respondent No.2 and hence this prayer, in my opinion, can also be granted. 4. As regards prayer clause (e), this prayer can be decided at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. 5. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from today. 6. Civil application disposed of accordingly.