1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

3. This Court, while entertaining the Special Leave Petition, had passed the following interim order. It reads as under :

"Issue notice limited to the question regarding the validity of the direction issued by the High Court for deciding the appeal by the lower appellate court by 31.5.2007. The direction issued by the High Court to the lower appellate court to decide the appeal by 31.5.2007 is stayed. It is, however, made clear that the hearing of the writ petition pending before the High Court is not being stayed and the same may be decided expeditiously."

4. In our opinion, at this stage, it would not be necessary to go into other details of the case. Accordingly, while disposing of the appeal, we request the High Court to dispose of the Writ Petition Nos.3368 & 3369 of 2006, pending before it, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within an outer limit of six months from today. Interim orders granted by this Court shall enure to the benefit of the appellant during the pendency of the Writ Petitions.

5. All the contentions raised by the parties are kept open.

6. Ordered accordingly.

IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT

7. The order of the High Court was delivered by

B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.

8. Heard Mr. Ketkar, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Thorat, the learned counsel for Respondent 1(a). Rule.

9. It is noticed that Regular Civil Suits Nos.69 and 70 of 1975 were filed for partition of the joint family properties and in the said suits written statement was filed at the first instance on or about 19-6-1976. The supplementary written statement was filed ten years later i.e. around 18-11-1986 and the suits have been decided in the year 2000. Two different appeals i.e. RCAs Nos.528 and 529 of 2000 have been filed against the trial court’s decisions. During the pendency of these appeals an application at Ext.30 in the first appeal and another application at Ext.24 in the second appeal came to be filed for amendment of the plaint in both the suits and these amendment applications were allowed by the impugned order dated 6-3-2006.

10. The partition of 1958 of the joint properties has already been dealt with by the trial court and by the amendment applications at Exts.24 and 30, as the case may be, moved sometime in January 2006 i.e. after 30 years, the appellants propose to take a plea that on account of the partition of 1958 the suit property had gone to his exclusive share.

11. Hence, stay to the impugned orders. The appeals are directed to be heard and decided expeditiously and preferably by 31-5-2007. Liberty to apply for final hearing in these petitions on the final decision of the appeals.