(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 126 OF 2011 Sripat s/o. Ganpati Batnapure. .. Petitioner (Original plaintiff) versus The State of Maharashtra [Through : District Collector, Latur], .. Respondents and 3 others. (Original defendants) ....................... Mr. A.H. Kasliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 11TH JANUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. The trial court has rejected prayer of the petitioner / plaintiff to issue witness summons to Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, to appear along with the record and proceedings. The trial court has found that the plaintiff's right to adduce (2) further evidence was forfeited not at one time, but twice or thrice and at the stage of final arguments, the request was made. What necessitated issuance of said summons and examination of witness was not disclosed in the application. The earlier application moved by the plaintiff for setting aside the order of "no further evidence" was rejected. 2. Mr. A.H. Kasliwal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, states that the trial court appears to have been prejudiced because of conduct of the petitioner / plaintiff and it has overlooked the subsequent order by which the petitioner / plaintiff was permitted to lead evidence. 3. I find that the trial court has considered relevant material and thereafter exercised discretion available to it. No case is made out warranting interference in this jurisdiction. 4. With liberty to the petitioner, to challenge the impugned order, after the suit is finally decided, if occasion therefor arises, the petition is disposed of. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp126