1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8458 OF 2009 Bhausaheb s/o Baburao Dighe and three others Petitioners Versus Mangal w/o Sopan Sangle and eight others Respondents Mr.S.K.Shinde, advocate for petitioners. Mr.A.N.Nagargoje, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.I.S.Thorat, advocate for Respondents No.4 to 8. CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 06th April, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Petitioners have noted in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition to the effect that they have entered into an agreement to sale in respect of property noted at paragraphs No.1-B, C and D. According to petitioners - original defendants, remaining property available with the family is sufficient to meet claim of plaintiff in the event of her success in the suit. Petitioners have also expressed their willingness to submit a written undertaking before the Court to the effect that they would not create any third party interest so far as properties described in paragraphs no.2 and 3 of the plaint, however, they shall be permitted to complete the transaction which they have entered into with other defendants in relation to the property mentioned in paragraphs no.1-B, C and D. 2 The prayer made by petitioners-original defendants is opposed by plaintiff on the ground that she claims her entitlement in exclusion of the defendants 2 in relation to the properties mentioned at paragraphs no.1A and 1B of the plaint. It is the contention of plaintiff that defendants cannot be permitted to alienate any portion out of the property mentioned in paragraph 1B. 3 It is also to be taken note of that the first appellate Court, while disposing of Misc. Appeal, has directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit within nine months from the date of order i.e. 06.10.2009. Thus, within short duration, the suit itself is likely to be disposed of. An apprehension is expressed by the petitioners that the restraint clamped by trial Court in respect of alienation of the property would be continued even after disposal of suit, if any of the parties raises challenge to the decree passed by trial Court by presenting an appeal to the appellate forum. 4 Petitioners, at the relevant time, before appropriate forum, may raise proper contentions and shall have liberty to renew their prayer. At this stage of the proceedings, no interference is required to be caused as the trial Court is already directed to decide the suit expeditiously. At appropriate stage and before appropriate forum, petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer and such request, if made, would be considered by the appropriate forum. In this view of the matter, no interference is required to be caused in this petition. 5 Writ Petition stands rejected. ( R. M. BORDE) JUDGE adb/wp845809