1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1798 OF 2009 Shri Timir Koli. ..Petitioner. V/s. Shri Shantilal Keshrimal Shah. ..Respondent. Mr.Sandesh Deshpande for petitioner. Mr.Ramesh Jain for Respondent. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2009. DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2009. DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2009. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. No interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted against interlocutory and moreso, discretionary order passed by the Court below. 3. According to the Counsel for the Petitioner, Petitioner would suffer serious prejudice and the view taken by the Court below is not consistent with the settled legal position. Assuming that there is some error in the approach of the Trial Court, it is not as if the same cannot be corrected at a later stage. As observed by 2 the Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai v/s. Surya Dev Rai v/s. Surya Dev Rai v/s. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. reported in (2003) 6 SCC Ram Chander Rai & Ors. reported in (2003) 6 SCC Ram Chander Rai & Ors. reported in (2003) 6 SCC 67 67 675, in particular, in paragraph-39, it is open to the Petitioner to question the correctness of the view expressed in the impugned order in the appeal or revision to be filed against the final decision of the Trial Court. Moreso, in the present case, it is always open to the Petitioner to prove the fact by examining his own witness including expert’s evidence. Hence, dismissed while keeping all questions raised in the present Petition to be considered in the appeal to be filed against the final decision of the Trial Court, if any. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)