4] Learned counsel for the appellant brings to our notice the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs . Malati R. Raut and ors. Vs. Mahadevo V. Joshi and ors.1 , to contend that such right is vested in the defendant/appellant herein since he has come out with such offer similar to the facts in the cited decision. In the said decision, the so called offer by the defendant was during pendency of the matter before the appellate court after judgment and decree in the partition suit. Even otherwise as observed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order having sought similar reliefs in the earlier notice of motion having filed both in the trial court as well as in the appellate court and in the light of not challenging the order of the Division Bench as quoted in the paragraph 4 of the impugned order, we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot seek as an interim measure to buy out share of the plaintiff at this stage. As observed in the earlier order dated 23 September 2005, the relief, if at all could be granted, has to be granted at the final hearing of the suit and not as an interim relief. So far as the parties before us the suit has not reached the finality and therefore, we are of the opinion that it is not just and proper to entertain similar application again and again. The parties are entitled to seek such intervention at the time of disposal of main matter on merits and the same could be
