1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 459 OF 2010 Smt. Madhavi w/o Sunil Shinde age 20 years, occ. household r/o Bhoom, Tq. Bhoom Dist. Osmanabad. ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1 Dnyaneshwar s/o Parasram Choube age 32 years, occ. agriculture r/o Sirgaon, Tq. Paranda Dist. Osmanabad. 2 Amol s/o Sadashiv Chormole age 30 years, occ. agriculture r/o Varud, Tq. Bhoom Dist. Osmanabad. .. RRESPONDENTS Mr. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.D. Ghayal, Advocate for respondent no. 2. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 12th APRIL, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard. 2 2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 It is not necessary to go into the factual details of the matter. Suffice it to note that an application tendered by the petitioner / original plaintiff requesting the court to issue suit summons to two witnesses has been turned down by the trial court on the ground that the purpose for examination of the proposed witnesses has not been stated by the applicant. It is not controverted that the names of the witnesses have been noted in the list tendered by the petitioner / plaintiff to the court. The purpose of examination of the witnesses has also been stated in the application presented at exh. 208. However, it appears that the trial court while passing the order has overlooked the contents of the application. Learned counsel for the respondents / original defendants does not have any serious objection in permitting the plaintiff to examine the witnesses. However, it is prayed that the directions be issued for expeditious disposal of the suit. In this view of the matter, writ petition needs to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. Order passed by the trial court on 5-12-2009 below exh. 208 in Regular Civil Suit no. 127/2002 is quashed and set aside and the application tendered at exh. 208 shall be deemed to have been allowed. 3 Trial court is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably by the end of December 2010. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts an circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R. M. BORDE) JUDGE dyb/wp459.10.odt