93 WP No.3627.2023 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3627 OF 2023 MANISHA MANESH RATHOD VERSUS RAMCHANDRA MANGO RATHOD ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Girish S. Rane Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Harshal P. Randhir ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Date : 4th March, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for respective sides. 2. The petitioner raises an exception to the judgment and order date 28.11.2022 passed by the Ad-Hoc District Judge - 2, Jalgaon below Exh. 1 in R.C.A. No. 59 of 2022, whereby the leave to appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Girish S. Rane submits that the petitioner has already instituted Special Civil Suit No. 125 of 2021 before the competent Civil Court, seeking a declaration of her legal status and rights. It is contended that since the petitioner’s civil rights are under adjudication in a substantive suit, she possesses a 2026:BHC-AUG:9994 93 WP No.3627.2023 -2- direct interest in the outcome of the connected proceedings. Therefore, the learned Appellate Court erred in dismissing her application for leave to appeal, as such a rejection prematurely forecloses her right to challenge an order that affects her legal standing. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Harshal P. Randhir submits that the petitioner’s claim of being the adopted daughter of the deceased is entirely unsubstantiated. It is argued that no documentary evidence was placed before the Trial Court or this Court to prima facie establish such a relationship. Consequently, the learned Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the application for leave to appeal, as no person can challenge a decree without proving a legitimate legal interest in the estate. 5. Upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, the Court observes that Section 4 of the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, provides that if a question at issue between parties is of a complicated or difficult nature, the Court may suspend proceedings for a certificate until the question has been adjudicated by a regular civil suit. In the present case, the petitioner has already instituted a substantive civil suit which is currently pending. Taking note of the same, this Court had previously granted interim protection on 93 WP No.3627.2023 -3- 30.03.2023, staying the proceedings for the grant of an heirship certificate in favour of the respondent. 6. In light of the pending civil suit, I am inclined to dispose of the present petition by directing the Trial Court to decide the substantive suit on its own merits. To preserve the rights of the parties during this period, the interim protection granted earlier shall remain in force and effect until the final decision of the Trial Court. Given that the suit was instituted in the year 2021, the Trial Court is further directed to conclude the proceedings and pass a final judgment within a strict period of one year from today. Upon the final adjudication of the civil suit, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh application for leave to appeal or seek further relief based on the Civil Court's findings. 7. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 8. Pending civil applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Omkar Joshi