1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1502 OF 2002 IN WRIT PETITION NO.896 OF 2001 Fulchand s/o Maniram Rajput ... APPLICANT VERSUS Santosh s/o Jalamsing Rajput & others ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri B.N. Patil, Advocate for the applicant (original respondent No.1) Shri R.B. Bhosale, Advocate for respondent No.1 (original petitioner) Shri M.D. Deokate, Advocate holding for Mrs. S.D. Dhumal (Tambat), Advocate for petitioner Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate appears as his name is shown on the Cause List ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 18TH JULY, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Shri P.B. Patil, learned counsel states that he appears for nobody, but still his name has been shown in the cause list and requested to delete the same and his name be deleted henceforth. Shri Bhosale, learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that he has also given no objection to the original petitioner and, therefore, his name also be deleted. In view of the said submission, name of Shri Bhosale also be deleted from the cause list on the Board henceforth. 2. Perused. 3. The applicant has preferred the present Civil Application for twofold prayers, i.e. for vacating the interim order granted in Writ Petition No.896/2001 as per prayer clause (B) and also for fixing early date for final hearing in Writ Petition No.896/2001 as per prayer clause (C). However, 2 Shri B.N. Patil, learned counsel for the applicant states that, the applicant does not press for the prayer of vacating interim relief granted in Writ Petition No.896/2001. 4. The applicant submits that, when the present application was filed in the year 2002, his age was about 72 years and now he is about 79 years old and, therefore, requested that the Writ Petition No.896/2001 be fixed for final hearing at the earliest to enable him to enjoy the fruits of the outcome of the same during his lifetime. 5. Besides that, the learned counsel for applicant also pointed out that the finding given by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad on 18.1.2001 is in his favour. Still he is deprived of the fruits thereof in view of filing of present Writ Petition No.896/2001 and interim order passed therein. 6. Heard both the learned respective counsel for petitioner and respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the non-applicant opposed the present application, contending that the present application bears no substance same is devoid of any merits and, therefore, same be rejected. 8. Considering the rival submissions, at the outset, Writ Petition No.896/2001 is itself about 8 years old and it is ready for final hearing and, therefore, same is required to be taken up for final hearing at the earliest. 9. Besides that, as pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was about 72 years old when the present application for final hearing was filed in the year 2002 and now his age is about 79 years and therefore also Writ Petition No.896/2001 is required to be taken for early hearing to enable the applicant to enjoy the fruits of the 3 outcome of the said Writ Petition during his lifetime. 10. Apart from that, the another aspect that although the judgment and order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad dated 18.1.2001 is in favour of the applicant, he is unable to get the fruits thereof due to filing of Writ Petition No.896/2001 and interim order passed therein also cannot be overlooked. 11. In view of the aforesaid position, present Application is required to be allowed in terms of prayer clause (C) in the interest of justice. 12. In the result, present Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (C) thereof and it is directed that Writ Petition No.896/2001 be fixed for final hearing in the week commencing from 14th September 2009 and since prayer clause (B) is not pressed by learned counsel for applicant, present Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) fmp/ca1502.02