1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7929 OF 2009 Mr. Awdeshkumar Singh s/o. Shrinath Singh, Age 50 yrs., Occu. Service, R/o. E-12, Gurusahani Nagar, Tirupati Park, N-4, CIDCO, Aurangabad. ....Petitioner. Versus Rajivkumar Singh s/o. Satishkukar Singh, Age 34 yrs., Occu. Service, R/o. House F-49/12, N-2, Ayodhya Nagar, CIDCO, Aurangabad ....Respondent. Shri. J.N. Singh, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 3rd August, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition challenges order dated 30.9.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, rejecting the application Exh. 43, filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 68/2007. 2. By an application at Exh. 43, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the witness (CIDCO Officer) to bring on record the necessary record in respect of the suit house. However, that application has been rejected, on the ground that no detail description of the document has been given for issuing direction to the witness to bring the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would file a fresh 2 application giving details of the record, which is to be summoned. 3. Notice in this matter was issued on 25th of November 2009 and stay to the proceedings was granted. Although the respondent is served, none appears for him. On 5th of July 2009 this Court directed the petitioner to issue advocate's notice to the respondent, stating therein that the matter will be finally disposed of at the stage of admission. Accordingly, copy of notice along with the acknowledgment is placed on record. The same are marked as "X" and "Y" for identification. In spite of this, non appears for the respondent. Hence, Rule, made returnable forthwith. 4. In view of the fact that the petitioner has shown willingness to specify the record, which is to be summoned from the Officers of CIDCO, he is permitted to file such application afresh. If such application is filed within three weeks, the Trial Court shall consider it afresh without being influenced by the order passed on 30.9.2009. Similarly, the order dated 15.10.2009 shall not come in the way of the Trial Court while deciding such application. The Trial Court is directed to decide the application in accordance with law. 5. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp7929.09