1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7143 OF 2008 Hanmant Baburao Ranvare ...Petitioner vs. Popat Burao Ranvare (Nanvare) & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Prataprao J.Shinde for the petitioner None for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : AUGUST 6, 2009 P.C. 1 Office noting shows that the respondents have been served with the notice. The first respondent is the original plaintiff who appears to be the contesting respondent. None appears for him. The petitioner is the first defendant. On 2 nd September 2008, the learned trial Judge passed an order recording that the petitioner was present but this Advocate remained absent till 4.40 p.m. The learned trial Judge noted in the application that the Advocate for the petitioner remained absent and the petitioner was not desirous of adducing evidence. Immediately, thereafter on 9 th September 2008, the petitioner applied for setting aside the said order. By the impugned order dated 9 th September 2009, the said application has been rejected. 2 It appears from the order dated 2 nd September 2008 that though the petitioner was present, his Advocate remained absent and therefore, further evidence could not be recorded. Within seven days of the said order, an application for setting aside the said order was made. The trial court appears to have taken a hyper-technical 2 approach. The trial court ought to have allowed the said application and permitted the petitioner to lead further evidence. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3 Hence, I pass the following order: i) Impugned order dated 9 th September 2008 is quashed and set aside. The Application made by the petitioner at Exh.179 is allowed. It is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to seek adjournment on any unreasonable ground and the petitioner will co- operate for expeditious disposal of the suit. JUDGE