1 wp8449.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 8449 of 2010 Malji Ravji Vaijal ... Petitioner v/s. Tusibai wd/o. Shankar Warli @ Vaijal Nee Vanshi Lakhmarinjad & ors. ..Respondents Mr. D.D. Madan, Sr. advocate i/b. S.A. Sawant & S. Suryawanshi for the petitioner. Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, Sr. advocate with Mr. A.L. Patki & Nihar Ghag for respondents 1-6. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- MARCH 16, 2011. P.C. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on instructions submits that certain points including a point regarding tenability of suit in view of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was not raised before the learned trial Court and as such the petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw the petition with further liberty to apply for review of the order impugned herein. 2 wp8449.10.sxw 2. Shri Kumbhakoni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents opposes the prayer for withdrawal. He submits that by filing an application as aforesaid, the scope of the original objection raised before the learned trial Court cannot be enlarged. He further submits that from the perusal of the order itself it would reveal that defendants had themselves not pressed the issue regarding want of jurisdiction of the learned trial Court on the ground of applicability of provisions of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 and, therefore, no error could be found with the order impugned. He submits that suit has been directed to be decided expeditiously by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court and an attempt to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file review petition is only to frustrate the orders of the expeditious hearing and protract the hearing of the suit. 3. When the petitioners themselves desire to withdraw the petition, this Court cannot compel them to proceed with the present petition. The petition is, therefore, disposed of with liberty to file an application for review of order impugned herein. However, it is made clear that Court has not considered the matter with regard to the tenability of the review 3 wp8449.10.sxw application and regarding the availability of the ground regarding Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 to the present petitioners in the review petition. The parties would be at liberty to raise all the grounds available to them and the learned trial Court would consider the same in accordance with law. 4. It is further made clear that in view of directions by this Court regarding expeditious disposal, the review application would be entertained by the learned trial Court, if so filed within a period of 10 days from today and would be decided in any case within a period of 30 days from today. (B.R. GAVAI, J)