IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO.93 OF 2005 Shaila Laxman Mokal ...Applicant Versus Laxman Namdeo Mokal ...Respondent ...... Mr.Ashok G.Toraskar for Applicant. Mr.Sagar Kajar i/b Mr.H.E.Palwe for Respondent. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JULY 14, 2006. JULY 14, 2006. JULY 14, 2006. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Hearing of this Application was deferred on the last occasion to enable the parties to explore the possibility of settlement. Today, counsel appearing for the parties inform that settlement is not possible. Accordingly, matter proceeded on merits. 2. After hearing Counsel for the parties and going through the facts and the grounds set out in the Application, which have remained : 2 : uncontroverted, even otherwise, being sufficient cause, in the interest of justice, in my opinion, the Application deserves to be allowed. This is so because the Applicant has made out good ground for transfer, as can be culled out from Paragraph 5 of the Application. 3. Accordingly, this Application succeeds in terms of prayer clause (d). No order as to costs. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.