gst 1 wp9546.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 9546 OF 2010. Suyog Suresh Gaikwad & Anr. ... ..... ..... Petitioners. V/s Dattatraya Arjunrao Gaikwad... .... .... Respondent. Mr.D.M.Gupte, Adv. For the petitioners. Mr.Mandar Limaye, Adv. For the respondent. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 13th April, 2011 PC: Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for hearing by consent of parties. By way of present petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 20.7.2010 vide which the learned trial Judge has refused to adjourn the matter and has closed evidence of the plaintiff. 2. Mr.Limaye, learned counsel appearing for respondent vehemently opposes the petition on the ground that though sufficient opportunity is given to the petitioner he has not availed of the same and as such no interference is warranted. 2. I find that it would be in the interest of justice that the parties are permitted to get the matter decided on merits instead of foreclosing the doors on technical grounds. In so far as prejudice that is caused to the respondent is concerned, same can be compensated by saddling costs. 3. The impugned order is therefore quashed and set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to lead the evidence provided that the petitioner’s witnesses are present on the next date fixed in the trial Court. It is made clear that on the next date no adjournment shall be granted to the gst 2 wp9546.10.sxw petitioner. 4. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with costs which are quantified at Rs.5000/- payable by the petitioner to the respondent. Petitioner has already deposited amount of Rs.5000/- in the trial Court. Respondent would be at liberty to withdraw the same. 5. Parties as well as trial Court to act on authenticated copy of the order.