Mokashi v. Mallappa Bhimappa Chikkalki , AIR 1922 Bom 9 (2) and Babu Apaji Potdar v. Kashinath . Sadoba Gulmire, AIR 1916 Bom 1 (FB). These
more or less adopted in the following cases: Krishnaray Yeshvant v. Vasudev Apaji Ghotikar & Co.. (1884) ILR 8 Bom 371; Ram Harak
from interfering. They consider that the rule laid down in -- 'Bhikaji Apaji v. Jagannath Vithal', (10 Bom HCR 351) is correct. It cannot
have precluded themselves from interfering. The rule laid down, in Bhikaji Apaji v. Jagannath Vithal, 10 Bom HCR 351 was approved.
"If the nearest