( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10257 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4846 OF 2010 Suman s/o Prasad Raut & others APPLICANTS VERSUS Shivaji s/o Ganeshrao Mutkule & others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. A.S. Deshmukh, advocate for the applicants (original respondents No. 1 and 2 in writ petition). Mr. M.R. Challani, advocate for the respondent (original petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in writ petition). .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 27th August, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The application is filed seeking recalling of the order passed by this Court in writ petition No. 4846 of 2010 on 10th June, 2010. 3. The respondents claim to be guardians of insane person i.e. plaintiff - Shivaji and minor Jaishri. It appears ( 2 ) that Ganeshrao Mutkule owned the land in question about which the respondents and the applicants are having dispute. Applicant Suman is the sister of Shivaji and claims to be the next friend or guardian. She is admittedly a married woman. 4. By order dated 10th June, 2010, interim arrangement was made so as to allow the respondent - Ramprasad to cultivate the land in question on condition that he shall deposit Rs. 75,000/- and the expenditure shall not be in excess of the 50% of the said amount. This Court also directed expeditious final hearing of the suit. 5. It appears that the amount is so deposited by the respondent - Ramprasad to the extent of Rs. 25,000/-. If he will fail to deposit rest of the amount i.e. Rs. 50,000/- within one (1) week, then he may be removed from the suit land without reference to the Court and the land may be taken over in custody of the Civil Court. 6. It is difficult to recall the order because the same is made by way of interim arrangement and the direction is given to decide the suit within period of nine (9) months, of which three (3) months are over. It is pointed out by Mr. ( 3 ) Deshmukh, appearing for the applicants, that by order dated 6th August, 2010, this Court declined to grant stay to the order rendered by the District Court in the proceedings of C.M.A. (RJE) No. 31/2009. It prima facie appears, no doubt, that respondent Ramprasad is removed from status as guardian of Shivaji, who is of unsound mind, so as to represent him in such capacity. Mr. Challani states that respondent Ramprasad has preferred an appeal against such order in which the stay order is not granted by this Court. 7. In any case, there is no need to revoke the order and recall the same, which is by way of temporary arrangement and only with a view to make some equitable arrangement so as to protect the rights of the plaintiffs who are the heirs of deceased Ganeshrao Mutkule and are apparently unable to take care of themselves. Only modification required in the order dated 10th June, 2010 is that the respondent - Ramprasad shall not be allowed to incur any expenditure more than 25% of the amount deposited if he will deposit the rest of the amount i.e. Rs. 50,000/- within the above stated period. Moreover, he will not continue in possession as a guardian of plaintiff No. 1 - Shivaji and the minor daughter i.e. Jaishri, but his status will be only that of a factor and he will be removed ( 4 ) without any further order after the term of cultivation allowed for the current agricultural year is over whether the suit is decided within the said period or not. The applicants are permitted to take part in the auction proceedings if the cultivation is being auctioned due to failure of the respondent - Ramprasad to deposit the amount or for any other reasons. The application is accordingly disposed of. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/ca10257-10