1 WP2755/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2755 OF 2011 Jagdeepsing s/o Khishansingh Siddhu and others Petitioners V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra and others Respondent Shri A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioners Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, AGP for respondent No. 1 – State Shri R.L. Chhabda, Advocate for respondent No. 2 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 25th August, 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. In my view, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at this stage itself, because the dispute about which the complaint is lodged through this writ petition is totally alien to the litigation which is pending between the parties before the learned District Judge. 3. The dispute is in respect of a certified copy issued by the Civil Court, Aurangabad. It is common ground that on 23rd April, 2010, respondent No. 2 made an application for getting the certified copy of the Judgment dated 12th April, 2010. This application was made through an Advocate. It is also common ground that this copy was ready for delivery on or about 26th April, 2010. It is also common ground that the certified copy was delivered, but it is in dispute as to who received the copy. Respondent No. 2 said that he did not receive the copy and therefore he made another application etc. The learned Judge of the lower Court held 2 WP2755/11 in terms that respondent No. 2 did not receive the copy. But, respondent No. 2, it seems, is not fully satisfied with this finding and is trying to suggest that it is the petitioners who had received the copy unauthorizedly from the Copying-Section. I am afraid, this allegation was unnecessary for deciding the application seeking condonation of delay etc. This statement made by respondent No. 2 thus should be ignored as it is not relevant at all. Looking to the relationship between the parties, I think, out of spite, such statement could have been made, and as said above, I do not propose to go further in the matter, and as said above, since the statement of respondent No. 2 was wholly irrelevant, there is no proposal for taking action against any of the parties. Thus, the writ petition stands disposed of. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/wp/2755/11/25/8/11