wp5993.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.5993/2011 Someshwar Pusaji Meshram -vs- Moonmadhav Ramkhilawan Kushwah and another ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shir M. A. Vaishnav, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 09.12.2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns an order passed by the Trial Court on 15/10/2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for grant of permission to adduce the evidence of the T.I.L.R., Talathi and the Measurer of the land, who had drawn the map. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the trial Court was perfectly justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner at the belated stage. The trial Court observed that when the matter was fixed for evidence of the petitioner- plaintiff on 10/07/2009, 29/07/2009, 09/09/2009, 01/10/2009 and 29/10/2009, the petitioner sought adjournments for adducing his evidence. After the application for grant of further time was dismissed on 15/12/2009 on an application filed by the petitioner, he was again permitted to adduce evidence by an order dated 06/01/2010. Thereafter, wp5993.11.odt 2/2 the matter was adjourned on 27/01/2010, 17/02/2010, 23/03/2010, 28/01/2010, 11/06/2010, 07/07/2010, 17/07/2010 and 19/07/2010, but the petitioner failed to adduce his evidence. On 27/07/2010 the examination-in-chief of the petitioner was completed and on 18/01/2010 the petitioner closed his evidence by filing a pursis. After the defendant closed his evidence on 17/03/2011 and the matter was fixed for arguments on 25/03/2011, the petitioner sought four adjournments. After seeking four adjournments for arguments, on 01/07/2011 the petitioner filed an application for appointment of a Commissioner which was rejected. After the said application was rejected, the petitioner filed an application for examining the T.I.L.R., Talathi and Measurer of the land. The Trial Court held that the petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting the matter at all. Since the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity granted to the petitioner from time to time to tender his evidence and the evidence of his witnesses, the Trial Court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no perversity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Trial Court. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE