1 wp 4519.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4519 OF 2011 1. Sow. Mangala W/o Baburao Devkar, Age : 32 Years, Occu. : Housewife, R/o Village Vadod Kanhoba (B) Tq. Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Master Yuvraj S/o Baburao Devkar, Age : Minor, Occu. : Student, U/Guardian of his real Mother Sow. Mangala W/o Baburao Devkar, R/o Village Vadod Kanhoba (B) Tq. Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad. .. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Aurangabad. 2. Raibhan S/o Yadav Devkar, Age : 55 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Village Vadod Kanhoba (B) Tq. Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad. 3. Vilas S/o Raibhan Devkar, Age : Major, Occu. : Agril., R/o Village Vadod Kanhoba (B) Tq. Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad. .. Respondents 2 wp 4519.11 Shri P. K. Lakhotiya, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri Deelip Bankar Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 01ST AUGUST, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The present petitioners had filed an application for heirship certificate which was allowed. Thereafter, the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an application for revocation of said certificate, so also filed an application Exhibit 6 in the said proceedings for stay of the said heirship certificate. The Court vide an ex-parte order temporarily revoked the heirship certificate granted in favour of petitioners till further orders. The same is assailed in the present writ petition. 3. Shri Lakhotiya the learned counsel for petitioners submits that inspite of fact that an ex-parte order was passed, their application Exhibit 6 is not been decided by the Court. The ex- parte order cannot be allowed to be continued without hearing 3 wp 4519.11 the present petitioners. According to the learned counsel the Court is bound to decide the said application. 4. Shri Bankar Patil, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the said order is temporary order and now the proceedings itself are for evidence. As such the whole proceedings can be decided expeditiously. It is the petitioners who are trying to protract the matter. 5. With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the order. The order passed below Exhibit 6 in M. A. (RJI) No. 702/2010 is passed ex-parte. The same is passed on 02nd August, 2010. The petitioners have appeared and resisted the said application by filing their say. When an ex-parte order is passed it is expected that the Court dealing with said application shall decide the same. The said application cannot be kept pending without passing any orders, more-so when ex-parte orders are passed. The law mandates to decide such applications wherein ex-parte orders are passed. In the present writ petition the prayer of petitioners for quashing the order below Exhibit 06 cannot be considered as the same is an ad-interim order and the Court seized with the matter would deal with the same on its 4 wp 4519.11 own merits. 6. The Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad before whom the proceedings in M. A. (RJI) No. 702/2010 is pending shall decide the application Exhibit 06 expeditiously on its own merits. 7. I have not observed anything on the merits of the matter. The writ petition is accordingly disposed, however, with no order as to costs. The Rule is made absolute in above terms. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Aug. 11