1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4949/2008 (Mohd. Yusuf thr. L.Rs. vs. Ajendra Bhargava thr. L.Rs.) ====================================== CORAM : B.P.Dhamadhikari, J. DATE : 21 st NOVEMBER, 2008 Heard Advocate Shri S.P.Kshirsagar, for the petitioners/plaintiffs. The challenge is to order dated 5.11.2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ashti, whereby he has closed the evidence of plaintiff and directed defendants to lead their evidence on the next day. During argument, Advocate Shri Kshirsagar has informed that as the plaintiff could not lead any evidence, the defendants have also filed pursis of 'no evidence' and the matter is now fixed for argument on 24th November, 2008. He further states that because of the threats and view expressly mentioned in the complaint to District Judge, dated 29.9.2008, the learned Presiding Officer is biased against the petitioner/plaintiff and the petitioner has moved the Principal District Judge, Wardha, vide M.C.A. No. 136/2008 for transfer. The said matter is fixed by the District Judge on 25th November, 2008 for futher 2 consideration and hence atleast till 25th November, 2008, the lower Court should be restrained from proceeding further so that in case the orders of transfer are made by the learned Principal District Judge, the petitioner can point out her case on merits. I have perused the record. I find that several opportunities have been given to petitioner/ plaintiff to lead her evidence. It appears that petitioner/ plaintiff had started making allegations against the learned Presiding Officer after the Presiding Officer started insisting that her lawyer has to appear at 11 O'clock. The suit is of year 1991 and it has been re-registered as R.C.S. No. 14/2002. The Trial Court has recorded that the High Court has already directed that both the suits i.e. R.C.S.No. 14/2002 and R.C.S.No. 21/1993 should be decided within six months. It appears that during the inspection, the administrative side had also raised objection about these matters and the learned Principal Judge has also directed the Presiding Officer to decide all pre-2005 suits as early as possible. It appears that August 2008 was the deadline for that purpose. Here perusal of the impugned order shows that the Presiding Officer was justified in closing the evidence of plaintiff. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. The 3 petitioner/plaintiff is at liberty to challenge the said order after final adjudication of the civil suit, if the occasion arises. Writ petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit