1 wp 9630.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9630 OF 2010 Smt. Sindhubai Wd/o Huna Bhole, Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. .. Petitioner Versus 1. Yuvraj S/o Huna Bhole, Age : 25 Years, Occu. : Private Job, R/o Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. 2. Union of India, Through General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai. 3. Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Bhusawal. .. Respondents Shri G. R. Syed Advocate h/f Shri Shaikh Naseer, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri C. V. Thombre, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri M. N. Navandar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2011. 2 wp 9630.10 ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The present respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for declaration that he is the only legal heir. The present petitioner is defendant in the said suit. During the pendency of the suit the witness summons was issued to one Sansthan to prove the certificate on record. The said witness had also deposed. Thereafter, the plaintiff sought time for cross examination. The said witness did not remain present on the adjourned date. As such, the present petitioner filed an application for issuance of notice or warrant to the said witness vide Exhibit 117. The said application is rejected by the learned Trial Judge. The present petitioner has assailed the said order in the present petition. 3. Shri Sayed, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said witness had deposed before the Court and it was the plaintiff who sought an adjournment. The matter was adjourned at the behest of the plaintiff and the cross examination of that witness could not be conducted. On the adjourned date as the witness was absent, the petitioner has 3 wp 9630.10 moved the application for issuance of notice or warrant to the said witness. The Trial Judge without assigning any reasons in one line rejected the said application which is erroneous. The said witness is material for effective adjudication of the dispute. 4. Shri Thombre, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the application filed by the petitioner is vague, nor any reasons are stated for absence of the witness. In such circumstances, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the said application. 5. Perusal of the impugned order it is manifest that absolutely no reasons are given by the learned Judge while rejecting the said application. If an application was to be rejected the Trial Judge was expected to give reasons for the same. Moreover, it is not the case that inordinate delay has been caused by the petitioner in filing the application. On the given date when the examination in chief was taken, the plaintiff sought an adjournment for cross examination. On the adjourned date when the witness was absent the instant application was moved. There was no impediment to allow the said application. 4 wp 9630.10 6. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause “B”. No costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 11