1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7423 OF 2008 Rama Dashrath Jadhav since deceased, through his LR’s PETITIONERS VERSUS Mohd.Hamidoddin S/o.Bashiroddin Since Deceased, through his LR’s and others RESPONDENTS Mr. S.V.Natu, advocate for petitioners Mr.G.D.Kale, advocate for respondents (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 16/06/2009 PER COURT : 1. The petitioners herein by present writ petition under Article 226, 227 of The Constitution of India, have challenged the order of stay passed in the application for condonation of delay bearing Misc.RJE No.82/2008, pending on the file of Ad-hoc District Judge, Nanded. 2. It appears from the record that the respondents herein have filed RCS No.1007/89 in the Court of Civil Judge, J.D. at Nanded against the present petitioners who were the defendants in that suit 2 for declaration that the compromise filed in Civil Appeal No.39/1987 before the Hon’ble Apex Court on 18/08/1989 is illegal for the declaration that the suit lands situated at Nanded are Inam land and not Madad Mash Inam land and for the declaration that the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Bombay in Writ Petition No.1034/1979, the judgment passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 28/02/1979 in Watan Appeal No.76/WTN/APP/20 and the judgment passed by the Deputy Collector in Appeal No.14/1975 dated 21/04/1976 are not binding on them and for the consequential reliefs. The said suit was contested by the present petitioners and others. In the said suit, an objection was raised about the jurisdiction of the Court. It appears that vide order dated 14/02/1995, the learned Jt.Civil Judge, J.D. Nanded passed the order of returning of plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the competent Court i.e. Atiyat Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, the CRA was preferred by the present respondents in the High Court in which stay was granted. But in the year 2008, the CRA was disposed of as not maintainable in view of amendments were introduced to the CPC. Thereafter, the first appeal was filed in the Court of District Judge, Nanded challenging the order passed dated 14/02/1995. As the proceeding was pending in CRA, it appears that delay caused to file this first appeal before the District Court. Hence that appeal was filed accompanied with the application for condonation of delay in which stay is granted, which order of stay is challenged i.e. the impugned order by way of this writ petition. Today, when the writ petition came up on record for hearing of 3 admission, it was suggested on behalf of the petitioners that considering the time gap for which the application for condonation of delay is pending, the directions may be issued to the District Court to hear the application of condonation of delay expeditiously and in case the District Court will pleased to allow to condone the delay and to entertain the appeal, then the appeal to be heard expeditiously. To this suggestion, there is no objection on the part of the respondents to hear the application for condonation of delay as expeditiously as possible and in case he is ready to go with the matter, in case the application for condonation of delay is allowed. Considering this proposal put up before this Court, the writ petition to be disposed of with following directions : 1. Ad-hoc-District Judge-2 Nanded is hereby directed to dispose of Misc.RJE No.82/2008 within the period of 2 months from today, but on or before 31/08/2009. 2. In case, the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-2 pleased to allow the application for condonation of delay, then to hear the proposed appeal accompanied with the said application for condonation of delay within the period of one month thereafter, but on or before 30/09/2009. 3. Advocate for petitioners and respondents to undertake this Court to co-operate the Trial Court in the matter of expeditious hearing of the pending Misc.RJE No.82/2008 and in case this petition is allowed, then to co-operate the Appellate Court for the expeditious hearing of the appeal accompanied with this Misc.RJE petition. 4 4. Writ petition stands disposed of with these directions. 5. Authenticated copy of this order duly signed by the Court Shirastedar be issued to either of the parties on their request. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/wp7423-08