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.2654 OF 2009 Bhagatsingh Damodar Vakhare ..Petitioner. V/s. Smt.Tarabai @ Yelubai Kisan Ingale & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr.Subhash Dhadge for petitioner. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : MARCH 19, 2009. DATE : MARCH 19, 2009. DATE : MARCH 19, 2009. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. As the order impugned in this Petition is a discretionary order and passed at the interlocutory stage, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. Assuming that there is error committed by the lower Court in the impugned Judgment, that can be corrected in the appeal or revision, to be filed by the Petitioner against the final decision of the trial Court. This is the position observed by the Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai v/s. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. reported Surya Dev Rai v/s. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. reported Surya Dev Rai v/s. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675, in (2003) 6 SCC 675, in (2003) 6 SCC 675, in particular, in paragraph-39 that the wrong done, if any, could be set right and 2 the rights and equities can be adjusted in appeal or revision preferred at the conclusion of the proceedings, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. Hence, dismissed. 3. Needless to observe that all questions raised in the present Petition are kept open to be agitated by the Petitioners in the appeal or revision to be preferred against the final decision at the conclusion of the proceedings which will have to be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)