:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2117 OF 2008 Harish Arun Bhagade ..Petitioner Vs. Sau Nasrin Ekbal Memon ..Respondent Mr. V.S. Gokhale for petitioner. Ms. Rekha Shukla for respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H. B.H. B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. MARLAPALLE, J. MARLAPALLE, J. Date Date Date : : : March 31, 2008. March 31, 2008. March 31, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Gokhale the learned counsel for the petitioner who has instituted Civil Suit No. 265 of 2003 before the Small Causes Court at Pune for fixation of standard rent and in the said suit an application at Exh.69 came to be filed on or about 16/1/2008 under Order XXVI Rule 9 for appointment of the Court Commissioner. The defendant filed say to the said application and opposed it. By the impugned order dated 7/2/2008 the application at Exh.69 has been rejected by the learned Judge of the Small Causes :2: Court at Pune. 2. There is no dispute that similar application was made at Exh.44 by the plaintiff and the same was rejected on 7/12/2006. The plaintiff had approached this court in a Writ Petition which was also rejected on 27/4/2007. The evidence of the defendant has been recorded and when the plaintiff was called upon to cross-examine, there was no response and, therefore, on 23/1/2007 the order of "no cross" was passed. The plaintiff applied for setting aside the said order and the application was allowed on 23/2/2007 by imposing costs of Rs.300/-. Despite all these orders, no steps are taken by the plaintiff to cross-examine the witnesses and to advance arguments so as to decide the suit. 3. The trial court, therefore, held that the application at Exh.69 suffered from malice so as to delay the trial of the suit and once such an application was already rejected and the order was confirmed by this court, the plaintiff would not have filed second application. Even otherwise the plaintiff had described the suit property in the :3: plaint and the defendant in the Written Statement has not disputed the description of the suit property. 4. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned order under the supervisory powers of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. The petition, therefore, fails at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected. The trial court is directed to hear and decide Civil Suit No.265 of 2003 as expeditiously as possible and in any case before 31st July 2008. Writ to go to the trial court forthwith. (B.H. (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.)