1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.982 OF 2009. DEOMAN SAKHARAM DOMALE & MOTIRAM DEOMAN DOMALE, R/O. PIMGLI (J), TAH. SAMGRAMPUR, DISTT. BULDANA. .. VERSUS .. 1) RAMJAN FAKIRA BHARSAKALE, (2) RAHEMAN SAAMSHER KEDAR, R/O. PIMGALI (J), TAH. SANGRAMPUR, DISTT. BULDANA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.P.Chorghade, Advocate for Petitioners. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : MARCH 02, 2010. 1. This petition is directed against order passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Samgrampur, below Exh. 93 in Regular Civil Suit No.20 of 2008, whereby he rejected petitioner’s application for examining one Manjulabai Sultane at the stage when the suit was fixed for hearing final arguments after evidence of both the sides was over. 2. The learned Judge has observed in his impugned order that from 17th June, 2006 till 12th October, 2008 the plaintiff had sought 44 adjournments. He, therefore, rightly held that there was no justification for seeking an adjournment or seeking to examine one more witness when 2 the case was closed for hearing final arguments. He also observed that the application was baseless and ambiguous since the plaintiff had not stated in his application as to when the plaintiff received knowledge about the sale deed executed by Smt.Manjulabai, who was to be examined as a witness. No dates are given in the application. 2. No interference is, therefore, called for. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE RR..