IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8220 OF 2008 Sidney Francis Gomes & Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.I.S.Mecwan i/b Mr.R.K.Thakkar for Petitioners. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar for Respondent No.1. Mr.N.M.Ganguli for Respondent No.4. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. FEBRUARY 5, 2009. FEBRUARY 5, 2009. FEBRUARY 5, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. In all fairness, Counsel for the Petitioners on instructions stated that the Court may not look into the allegations made by the Petitioners in this Petition or any other document which is part of record before the lower Court, which may be in the nature of insinuation against the concerned Judge. The Petitioners are : 2 : unconditionally withdrawing all the statements or allegations which have that effect. That statement is accepted. 3. Ordinarily, in this situation, the question of asking the concerned Trial Court Judge not to proceed with the matter does not arise. However, in the interest of all concerned, as the concerned Trial Court Judge has also expressed his reservation about the manner in which matter was proceeding before him, the appropriate course to my mind is to direct the Principal Judge to assign the case to some other Judge who shall proceed with the trial expeditiously as the Suit pertains to year 1996. The concerned Trial Court Judge shall keep in mind that no request for adjournment on any count at the instance of the Petitioners herein shall be entertained as the Petitioners through Counsel assure to proceed with the trial expeditiously and extend full cooperation to the Trial Court Judge for early disposal of the Suit, if required, by proceeding on day-to-day basis. Counsel for the contesting private Respondents has : 3 : no objection for this arrangement. 4. In the circumstances, this Petition is disposed of on the above terms. 5. The Principal Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai shall assign the case to another Judge before the next date of hearing of the Suit. 6. It is once again made clear that this arrangement is in no way any reflection on the concerned Trial Court Judge before whom the trial of the Suit was already in progress. 7. The Respondent No.4 is free to engage Advocate of her choice, failing which, it will be open to the Trial Court Judge to take assistance of amicus curiae from the panel of Advocates maintained in that Court to ensure smooth progress of trial. 8. It is further made clear that any interim : 4 : order passed by this Court during the pendency of : 5 : this Petition stands recalled in terms of this order. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.