1 wp8842-10 jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8842 OF 2011 Devidas Narayan Gavate .. Petitioner Versus Smt. Subhadra Sopan Gavate and others ... Respondents Mr. Pradeep S. Gole for the petitioner Mr.Rohit Surwase h/for Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande for respondent nos. 1 to 4 CORAM : R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 10rd October, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard learned advocates on both the sides. 2. In Regular Civil Suit No. 235 of 2002, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai passed " No cross " order on 28th July, 2005. The application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the "no cross" order was rejected by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Wai by his order dated 22nd November, 2009. This order is challenged in this petition. 3. On 25th March, 2011, this Court passed order as follows: "Issue notice for final disposal. Returnable in four weeks. Ad- interim in terms of prayer clause (c) granted. Prayer clause (c) reads as follows: "that pending the hearing and final disposal of the instant writ petition, the further proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No 235 of 2002, be stayed" 2 wp8842-10 4. After passing the aforesaid order, the petition is pending. The said ad interim order is not vacated. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that despite the aforesaid interim order, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Wai attended the said Regular Civil Suit No. 235 of 2002 and the said suit is dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 30th July, 2011. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that now that suit is decided against him. The petitioner is interested in challenging the judgment and decree in appeal and that he wishes to raise objection as to the order impugned in this petition also in the appeal memo. He seeks liberty for that. So far as this aspect is concerned, there is no difficulty. The petitioner can be granted liberty to raise objection as regards the impugned order dated 22nd November, 2009 in the Appeal which is likely to be filed. 5. I am now concerned about violation of the order, dated 25th March, 2011 passed by this Court, by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai, i.e. to say that though the learned Civil Judge Wai was restrained from going ahead with the aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No. 235 of 2009, it appears that he has decided the Suit. The observation is made on the basis of statement made by the learned advocate for the petitioner. If what is stated is correct then, prima facie, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai who has attended to the aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No. 235 of 2002 has not complied with the order of stay of the proceedings. In such event, the explanation is required to be obtained form the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai as to under what 3 wp8842-10 circumstances he has proceeded to decide the Regular Civil Suit No. 235 of 2002 though the order dated 25th March, 2011 was operating in respect of the the said Suit. 6. Hence following order is passed: i. So far as merits of the petition are concerned, the petitioner is permitted to raise point as regards impugned order in the appeal, which he wants to file. ii. Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai before whom the Regular Civil Suit No. 235 of 2002 was pending as on 25/3/20011 is hereby directed to furnish his explanation within two weeks from receipt of this order and explain as to how the suit came to be decided on merit by judgment and decree dated 30th April, 2011, when the ad interim order was running. iii. Registry is directed to serve a copy of this order and call for the explanation by addressing appropriate letter to the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai. The said explanation be placed before this Court for appropriate action, if any, immediately after it is received by the office. 7. The Petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. (R. Y. GANOO, J.)