(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 7322 OF 2010 Vaijnath s/o. Yadoji Jatale, Age : 64 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Mahmadpurwadi, .. Petitioner Taluka : Basmat, (Original defendant District : Hingoli. no.3) versus 1. Trimbak s/o. Yadoji Jatale, Age : 59 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Mahmadpurwadi, Taluka : Basmat, District : Hingoli. 2. Vishwanath s/o. Yadoji Jatale, Age : 71 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Mahmadpurwadi, Taluka : Basmat, District : Hingoli. 3. Shivaji s/o. Yadoji Jatale, .. Respondents Age : 67 years, (No.1 - Original Occupation : Agriculture, plaintiff, R/o. Mahmadpurwadi, Nos.2 & 3 - Original Taluka : Basmat, defendant nos.1 & 2) District : Hingoli. ....................... (2) Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.M. Shinde, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Respondent nos.2 and 3 served (Absent). ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 27TH APRIL 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, for the petitioner, and Adv. Mr. D.M. Shinde, for respondent no.1. None for respondent nos.2 and 3, though duly served. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16-7-2010, passed by the learned District Judge-1, Basmathnagar, below Exhibit 21, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 17/2006, thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioner / appellant for allowing him to adduce evidence to prove alleged partition deed. 3. Appellate court has rejected application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, filed by the present petitioner, after (3) noticing that the appeal was already heard finally and was posted for judgment. It has further found that the facts reveal that deceased father of appellant had become exclusive owner after partition and his share could have then devolved upon a particular party only by way of gift or sale. The story of alleged partition is examined in that background and it found that no purpose would be served thereby. Thus, all facts are examined by the appellate court. 4. I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. With liberty to the appellant / petitioner to challenge the impugned order after appeal is finally decided, if occasion arises therefor, present petition is disposed of. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp7322