1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4019/2011 MAHESH Y. RUPRELIYA AND ORS ..VS.. DHIRAJLAL B. RUPRELIYA AND ORS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.R.Deshpande advocate for petitioner Mr. P.S. Wathore, advocate for respondent -1 caveator Miss Godbole h/f M.H.Awade advocate for respondent no.4 caveator Mr. Pathan, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.5. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : AUGUST 20, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 9.8.2011 allowing an intervention application filed by the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 was permitted to participate in the proceedings and raise the objection. It would not be necessary to interfere with the impugned order dated 9.8.2011 in exercise of the writ jurisdiction at this stage, as it is informed to this court that the matter is fixed before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal for hearing of the revision application on 9.9.2011. It is stated in the impugned order that at the time of final hearing of the revision application, if it is found by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that the respondent no.1 / intervenor has no concern with the subject matter of the 2 dispute, then the Tribunal would deal accordingly. This means that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal would not entertain the objections raised by the intervenor at the stage of final hearing in case the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal comes to a conclusion that the intervenor has no concern with the subject matter of the dispute. In such circumstances, the petitioners should have no reason to challenge the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal to decide the revision application as early as possible and if possible the parties may be heard on 9.9.2011 itself. In the interest of justice, the parties should maintain status-quo during the pendency of the proceedings before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. No order as to costs. JUDGE SMP