1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6563 OF 2009 1] Fakirchand Bansilal Kaswa Age 74 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Mirajgaon, Tal. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2] Kamalbai Amrutlal Kaswa Age 55 years, Occ. Household R/o. As above. Both through G.P.A. Shri Jitendra Amrutlal Kaswa, Age 36 years, Occ. Business, r/o. As above. .. Petitioners Versus Dhanchand Chandanmal Nahar Age 44 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Mirajgaon, Tal. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. Respondent. --- Mr. Satyajit Bora, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 1st December, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2 2] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 11th August, 2009 vide which the application filed by the present petitioners/defendants, for setting aside the order of closing evidence of the petitioners, came to be rejected. 3] The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for perpetual injunction. The defendants have put in their appearance. In the said proceedings, inspite of grant of several adjournments, evidence was not led on behalf of the defendants and, therefore, on 24th April, 2009 an order closing the evidence of the defendants came to be passed. It is pertinent to note that the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded much earlier and after the order dated 24th April, 2009 was passed, the matter was kept for final arguments. At that stage, a application for setting aside the order came to be filed, on which the impugned order is passed. 4] Shri Bora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the application ought to have been allowed in the interest of justice. He submits that the petitioners/defendants were busy in the marriage ceremony of their relative and as such, there was a lapse on their part. 5] Shri Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondent supports to the impugned order. He submits that inspite of grant of sufficient opportunity, the petitioners have failed to adduce any evidence and as such, no interference is warranted in the impugned order. 3 6] No doubt, it can not be said that the jurisdiction exercised by the learned trial court has been exercised in a perverse manner. The learned trial court has given cogent and sound reasons for rejecting the application. However, I find that in the peculiar circumstance of the case, and taking into consideration the reason given by the applicants that they were busy in the marriage ceremony in the family, it would be in the interest of justice to give one more opportunity to the petitioners to adduce the evidence. In so far as the prejudice that is likely to be caused to the respondent is concerned, thta can be compensated by saddling costs. 7] In the result, the impugned order dated 11th August, 1009 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is permitted to remain present before the learned trial court on the next date alongwith his witnesses and that the petitioners shall commence recording of the evidence on the very same day or on the next date, as per the convenience of the learned trial court. However, this shall be subject to payment of costs, which are quantified at Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited in the trial court prior to, or on the next date. On deposit of costs the respondent would be at liberty to withdraw the same. On failure to deposit the same, the petition shall stand automatically dismissed. . It is further made clear that the learned trial court shall not grant any unnecessary adjournments to the petitioners and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. 4 An authenticated copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the parties to act upon. Rule made absolute in above terms. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-