1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9911 OF 2009 Digambar Dagdu Undre .. Petitioner versus Eknath Sadu Undre & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Sanjay P. Pawar for the petitioner. Mr.M.S.Karnik for respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 23rd February 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original defendant No.65. There is a decree for partition passed by the trial Court in favour of the 1st respondent who is the original plaintiff. An appeal preferred by some of the defendants against the decree for partition is pending. On application for stay filed in the appeal, learned District Judge passed an order on 18th December 2008 directing that the partition proceedings will go on. However, possession of the suit properties should not be delivered to the respective parties in terms of the decree. By order dated 7th February 2009 the learned trial Judge forwarded the papers to the Collector for effecting partition in accordance with section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. While doing so the learned Judge noted that though partition proceedings will continue, possession of the respective shares of the parties to the suit shall not be disturbed till the decision of the pending appeal. 2 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that even partition proceedings cannot be continued till the appeal is disposed of. The submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner is sufficiently protected by the trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court by issuing a direction that though partition proceedings will continue, actual physical partition by metes and bounds will not be effected till the final disposal of the appeal. There is no prejudice to the petitioner if the partition proceedings continue and the Collector passes an order suggesting partition in a particular manner. So long as possession of the parties is not disturbed on the basis of order of partition passed by the Collector, there is no prejudice to the petitioner. No case for interference is made out. Subject to what is stated above, writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)