IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 313 OF 2006 Rajaram Yeshwant Patil. ... Appellant. V/s. Kalidas Rajaram Patil and others. ... Respondents. L.S.Gaikwad for the appellant. A.A.Shinde i/b. Dilip Bodake for respondent Nos.1,3,4,5B, 5L, 6A, 6C to 6E, 7A, 7C to 7E, 10, 12, 14B, 14C, 14E and 15. CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. DATED : 24th September 2009. P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal was filed sometime in September, 2002 and registered in the year 2006. In the meanwhile, appeal has been dismissed against respondent Nos.2, 5A, 5D, 7B, 7F, 8, 9, 11, 14A, 14D. With the result, impugned judgment and decree has become final and conclusive against the aforesaid respondents. In view of the judgment of this Court in Sheela wd/o. Vijay v. Central Bank, 1998 (1) Mh.L.J. 928, this appeal is liable to be dismissed since impugned decree has become final and conclusive against some of the respondents. There cannot be two inconsistent decrees in one proceeding. 3. In the result, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA J.)