1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LPA NO.29/2011 IN WP NO.5123/2010 (D) [Vilas Namdeorao Pawade .vrs. Jagdish Mahadeoraoprasad Choudhary and others] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Shri A.M. Deshmukh, Advocate for appellant, Shri S.D. Khati, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 6. .......... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : JULY 20, 2011. The matter was heard by this Court on 11.7.2011 and, thereafter, it was adjourned to today to enable the appellant to point out reasonable time needed by them for vacation of premises. Today, attempt is to argue the matter afresh in the light of the marriage of the daughter of respondent no.1 by name Mona. Contention is because of the proposed marriage, the need as proved is wiped out. Advocate Shri Khati is opposing the fresh argument. He points out that this court then found that in view of concurrent findings of bonafide need, no case for interference in LPA is made out. He 2 further points out that on aspect of comparative hardship, specific question was asked to appellant to demonstrate from cross examination of respondent no. 1 the material negating the same brought on record by appellant/petitioner. But the said material could not be shown to this court on last occasion and, thereafter, this court adjourned the matter to give reasonable time to appellant to vacate the premises. He makes a statement that respondent no.1 is ready and willing to give reasonable time to vacate the premises. He also points out that invitation card on record is of engagement of Mona and not of her marriage. Advocate Shri Deshmukh states that let respondent no.1 file execution. In view of these arguments, it is apparent that this court was wrong in granting adjournment on 11.7.2011. We, therefore, dismiss the Letters Patent Appeal with costs of Rs.2,000/- payable by the appellant to respondent no.1. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande