908-WP-746-2026=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 746 OF 2026 Parsappa Murgyappa Kalmadi And Ors. … Petitioners Vs. Birappa Pandurang Daingade And Ors. … Respondents …………. Mr. Ramdas Shelke a/w Vaishnovi Shelake for the Petitioners Mr. Amit Sale a/w Shreyas Karagar, Twinkal Kotawadekar for the Respondents …………. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026. P. C. : . Heard both sides. 2. The petition is directed against the order dated 01.12.2025 passed below Exh.26 and order dated 22.12.2025 passed below Exh.33 in RCS No. 166 of 2024. 3. After hearing both sides for some time, it transpires that both applications are made under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC at pretrial stage. I prefer to follow consistent view of this Court in entertaining the applications under Order XXVI Rule 9 after recording of evidence and not at pretrial stage. Reliance can be placed upon the judgments in the case of Sitaram Sukhlak Patil vs. Vasudev Sukhlal Patil in Writ Petition No. Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 2 UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Digitally signed by UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: 2026.09.28 10:06:41 +0530 908-WP-746-2026=.doc 9626 of 2016, decided on 31.07.2017 and Sarjerao Nathu Bangar & Ors. vs. Namdeo Keru Bangar & Ors. in Writ Petition No. 13441 of 2019, decided on 07.11.2019. 4. It would be open for the petitioner to take recourse to Order XXVI Rule 9 after recording of evidence which is proper stage of the proceedings. 5. The Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to take recourse of Order XXVI Rule 9, if so required after recording of evidence and the trial Court shall consider the application on its own merits without being influenced by the impugned order. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ) Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 2