1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4383 OF 2009 ... M/s Bharat Agencies. .PETITIONER V E R S U S Shri Vallabdas Chhaganlal Shah and ors. ..RESPONDENTS. Shri.S.P.Brahme, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J : DATE : 15th JULY, 2009 PER COURT :- 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 04.05.2009 vide which an application filed by the present petitioner for issuing summons to the proposed witnesses came to be rejected. 2- The respondent-landlord has filed a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, an amendment was made by the present petitioner for amendment of written statement so as to incorporate the pleadings that during the pendency of the suit, the respondent land-lord has constructed three storied building and as such, the contention of bona fide requirement was not in existence. Said amendment was incorporated on 03.11.2007. The petitioner thereafter filed another application on 04.05.2009 for examining the commissioner of Municipal Council, Dhule as witness to substantiate the claim raised in the written statement. Said application is rejected. Hence the present petition. 3- Shri Brahme, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2 petitioner submits that in order to prove the ground raised by the defendant in the written statement, that the plaintiff had constructed three storied building and as such, bona fide requirement was not in existence it was necessary to examine the said witness and as such the learned trial court had erred in not allowing the said application. 4- Perusal of the order would reveal that the suit is filed in the year 1995. There are directions issued by this Court to decide the suit till June, 2008. Though amendment application has been allowed in the month of November, 2007, the present application is filed almost after one and half year later. Not only this it appears that adjournments after adjournments are taken by the present petitioner on one pretext or other. Learned trial court has found that application is nothing but an attempt to protract the proceedings. 5- In that view of the matter, no perversity or infirmity could be found with the approach adopted by the trial court so as to warrant interference in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence rejected. ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ..... aaa/wp4383.09