W.P.No.9106 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9106 OF 2011 Dashrath s/o Paulad Patil and anr. ..Petitioners Versus Ananda s/o Shripat Marathe since deceased through his L.Rs. 1-A. Prakash s/o Ananda Marathe and ors. ..Respondents Mr A.G.Magare, Advocate for petitioners CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 28th November 2011 PER COURT 1. The petitioner is the original defendant. The respondent has filed a suit for recovery of possession. The respondent led his evidence. Thereafter the order of no cross was passed against the petitioner. Subsequently, the matter was reserved for judgment. When the suit was already reserved for judgment, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside no cross order. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 2. Shri Magare, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court has not considered the reasons for non filing of an application earlier and the cause shown for setting aside the no cross order. Only on the ground that the matter is reserved for judgment the Court has failed to W.P.No.9106 of 2011 2 exercise its jurisdiction. The learned Counsel contends that the suit is in respect of the rights of the parties in an immovable property. The Court should have taken practical approach and should have allowed the application. The learned Counsel further contends that there is nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure, which prohibits the Court from entertaining the application, even if the suit is reserved for judgment. 3. It is not disputed that on the day, when the application was filed for setting aside no cross order, the suit was reserved for judgment. The Apex Court in a case of Arjun Singh vs Mohindra Kumar & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 993 has categorically held that there is no hiatus between pronouncing the judgment and reserving the case for judgment. It has also held that once the suit is reserved for judgment, the Court does have the jurisdiction to revert back. In view of such position, no error can be found in the order impugned. The writ petition as such is dismissed with no orders as to costs. 4. Needless to state the petitioner can avail of the appropriate remedy, if the decree is passed against the petitioner. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ) (vvr/9106.11wp)