1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3796 OF 2010 Suraji Bhima Atram .-: VERSUS :- State of Maharashtra and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 06, 2010. Heard Shri A. Deshpande, learned Counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1, Shri A.B. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3, Shri M.P. Khajanchi, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 4,7 and 8, Shri R.N. Chari, learned Counsel for respondent no.5 and Shri H.R. Gadhia, learned Counsel for respondent no.6. Perused reply filed by respondent no.6, which reveals that only amount of Rs.18,47,173/- is currently lying with it. Application moved by the petitioner before the Trial Court was under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. and for 2 sum of Rs.46,20,484/-. The first application at Exh.5 was filed with contention that the amount is still not disbursed to respondent no.4 before this Court. Fact show that amount was already disbursed. In this situation, I do not find anything wrong with concurrent application of mind by both the Courts. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate application in accordance with law in relation to the amount in balance with respondent no.6 – Bank. If any such application is moved, the same shall be looked into by the trial Court independently on its own merits. With said liberty, Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.