(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 9951 OF 2010 Kanta Ramdas Gite, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Samata Colony, Majalgaon, Taluka : Majalgaon, District : Beed. .. Petitioner. versus Purushottam s/o. Shankarrao Solanke, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Amala, Taluka : Dharur, District : Beed, and 4 others. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. Santosh S. Jadhavar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 to 5. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard both sides. 2. In a suit for injunction, written statement denying status of petitioner / plaintiff was filed in the month of March 2009. Thereafter, issues were framed on 2-1-2010 and matter was adjourned for evidence to 27-1-2010. On 24-2-2010, the petitioner / plaintiff sought adjournment for leading evidence. On 25-3-2010, again he sought adjournment. The third adjournment was sought on 28-4-2010 which was granted subject to payment of costs of Rs. 200/-. On 24-6-2010, the costs were paid and application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was moved seeking declaration of title also. The contention was that inadvertently prayer was left out. That application has been rejected by the trial court. 3. After hearing Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. S.J. Salunke, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, I find that the trial court (3) has looked into all relevant aspects. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity. Hence, the petition is not entertained. 4. With liberty to the petitioner, to challenge the impugned order of the trial court, after the suit is finally decided, the petition is disposed of. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp9951