1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1681 OF 2008 Smt.Sakubai Kamlu Bhujbal and Anr. .. Petitioners Versus Smt.Parvatibai Kamlu Bhujbal and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.A.Sawant for petitioners Mr.S.N.Chandrachood for respondent No.1(a). CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 17th March 2008 P.C. . This order is passed upon an enquiry under Order 22 Rule 2 of C.P.C. which was 2 initiated pursuant to the directions of this Court. The controversy before this Court was whether the original plaintiff Parvatibai (since deceased) can be represented by the respondents (more particularly respondent Nos. 1 to 4) to the petition or that the original defendant No.1 represents the estate of the deceased. 2. The enquiry was conducted and an order has been passed which has been impugned. In my view, the order under challenge merely enables respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to prosecute the suit. Enquiry was directed bearing in mind that aspect. Now the suit will proceed. In such circumstances, merely because the application Exh.180 has been allowed and Exh.182 has been rejected does not mean that the petitioners are without any remedy. This is an interlocutory order. Petitioner’s contentions on merits of the case are not affected adversely. That apart, if the final orders in the suit are adverse to the 3 petitioners, then, while impugning the same, petitioners can raise appropriate pleas with regard to rejection of Exh.182 application and the order allowing Exh.180 application. All contentions of both sides in that behalf are kept open. Petition dismissed. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)