k 1/4 15 wp 12500.26 as.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.12500 OF 2026 Prakash Keheriram Agarwal & Ors. ....Petitioners V/S Radhika K. Mitha & Ors. ....Respondents _________ Mr. Bharat Gadhavi with Mr. Aniket Shitole and Ms. Trushna Shah and Mr. Sarvesh Deshpande for the Petitioners. __________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 21 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1. The Petition is filed seeking a clarification in respect of order dated 28 August 2026 passed in Writ Petition No.10875 of 2026. By that order, this Court merely recorded a statement on behalf of Petitioners therein (Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) that they no longer wish to press decision of applications at Exhibits-22 and 27 on a priority basis. This Court accordingly clarified that the Co-operative Court would be free to take up application for temporary injunction at Exhibit-5 for decision in an expeditious manner. 2. Petitioners contend that they have filed an application for intervention in the pending dispute. They complain that without hearing their application for impleadment, the Co-operative Court is proceeding ahead to decide the application for temporary injunction at Exhibit-5 on katkam Page No. 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AS:38440 k 2/4 15 wp 12500.26 as.doc account of order passed by this Court on 28 August 2026. Petitioners desire that they also need to be heard when application for temporary injunction is decided by the Co-operative Court. 3. The purpose of filing Writ Petition No.10875 of 2026 needs to be understood. It appears that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Disputants had filed three applications as under: (i) Application at Exhibit-5 for seeking temporary injunction; (ii) Application at Exhibit 22 seeking "no say/no written statement" order against the Opponent; and (iii) Application at Exhibit-27 for judgment under Order VIII, Rule 10 and Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Disputants were advised to file application at Exhibit-30 for decision of priority in respect of the pending applications. On application preferred by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 at Exhibit 30, the Trial Court decided the priority as under: “(1) Maintainability application; (2) Third-party application; and (3) Application under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” 5. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 got aggrieved by order dated 11 March 2026 and filed Revision before the Co-operative Appellate Court, which was partly allowed by order dated 7 July 2026. The Appellate Court katkam Page No. 2 of 4 k 3/4 15 wp 12500.26 as.doc set aside the order dated 11 March 2026 passed by the Co-operative Court and remanded the application at Exhibit-30 for fresh consideration. 6. It is these orders dated 11 March 2026 as revised by the Appellate Court on 7 July 2026 which became subject matter of the challenge in Writ Petition No.10875 of 2026. When the Petition came up for hearing before this Court, the Petitioners therein (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) showed willingness to withdraw the Application at Exhibit-30. Thus, the very basis for passing order dated 11 March 2026 by the Co-operative Court and order dated 7 July 2026 by the Co-operative Appellate Court was itself withdrawn by Respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is on account of this desire expressed by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 that this Court disposed of Writ Petition No.10875 of 26 by order dated 28 August 2026, leaving open liberty to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to press Application at Exhibit 5 for temporary injunction. 7. From the above discussion, it is clear that the Application for impleadment filed by the Petitioners was not even subject matter of Application at Exhibit-30. Even though the Trial Court did mix up the impleadment application of Petitioners while deciding the priority vide order dated 11 March 2026, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 never applied for decision of priority in respect of impleadment application filed by the Petitioners. Since the Application at Exhibit-30 itself is withdrawn by Respondent Nos.1 and 2, there is no occasion for the Trial Court to decide the priority in respect of any of the pending Applications. katkam Page No. 3 of 4 k 4/4 15 wp 12500.26 as.doc 8. In my view, therefore, it is not necessary to issue any clarification in the order dated 28 August 2026. It would be open for the Co-operative Court to decide as to whether present Petitioners need to be heard when Application at Exhibit-5 filed by the Disputants is taken up for consideration. 9. All contentions in that regard are specifically kept open. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) katkam Page No. 4 of 4 Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 21/09/2026 20:11:11