1 wp5888.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION No. 5888 OF 2011 1. Jeevan S/o Nivruti Fulse, Age : 51 years, Occ : Service 2. Navnath S/o Nivruti Fulse, age : 54 years, Occ : Agril., 3. Uddhav S/o Nivruti Fulse, age : 46 years, Occ : Agril., All R/o Samsapur, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. ..PETITIONERS -VERSUS- Sopan S/o Ramrao Fulse, age : 65 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Samsapur, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. ..RESPONDENT ...... Shri B.R. Kedar, advocate for the petitioners. Shri. D.G. Chewale Reddy, advocate for the respondent. ...... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 5th September, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Leave to amend. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, this Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2 wp5888.11 3. The petitioner is the original defendant. The plaintiff led his examination in chief and has cross examined the defendant's witnesses. Thereafter, the petitioner examined the T.I.L.R. as witness. The defendant sought adjournment. The said application was rejected. Again application Exhibit-60 was moved, which also came to be rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present Petition is filed. 4. Shri B.R. Kedar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has stated the reason seeking adjournment that, the Advocate of the defendant was engaged in other Court as such had sought time to cross examine the T.I.L.R. The Court has taken very technical approach by rejecting the same. 5. Shri Chewale Reddy, the learned Advocate for the respondent opposes the Petition and submits that the defendant is deliberately protracting the matter and not cross examining the plaintiff's witnesses. No cogent reason was mentioned. The trial Court has properly dealt with the matter and rejected the application. No error of jurisdiction has been committed by the trial Court. 3 wp5888.11 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the application and the orders. The suit filed by the plaintiff is for possession. It is substantive suit considering the immovable property. It is not the case where on many occasion adjournment was sought to cross examine the T.I.L.R. The reason was stated for adjournment. Same could have been considered by imposing some costs upon the defendant. The trial Court has taken very hyper technical approach, same would not subserve the ends of justice. 7. In view of the above conspectus of the matter, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer `C' on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit the cost of Rs. 3000/- in the trial Court within a period of three weeks from today. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE ga s/wp5888.11