(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 4564 of 2009 Shoukat Ibrahim Tamboli. .. Petitioner (Original defendant no.1 ) versus 1. Anjuman Ittehad Tambolian Jamat, .. Respondents 2. Azizbhai Alishet Tambholi, (Nos.1 to 7 - 3. Anwr Ismail Tamboli, Original plaintiffs, 4. Haji Ibrahim Abbas Tamboli, No.8 - 5. Siraj Imam Tamboli, Original defendant 6. Altaf Ismail Tamboli, no.2 ) 7. Yusuf Babubhai Tamboli, 8. Mohamadsahab Balambhai Tamboli. .................. Mr. N.C. Garud, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Temkar, Advocate, for respondent no.4 / caveator. .................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 16TH JULY 2009. COURT’S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 16th March 2009, passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil (2) Judge (Junior Division), Ahmednagar, below Exhibits 1 and 83 in Regular Civil Suit No. 403/2004, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for acceptance of Bhatta and for issuance of summons to the witnesses. 2. Mr. N.C. Garud, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that it is in the interest of justice, that the parties should be permitted to prove their case. It is submitted that if the impugned order is not set aside, the petitioner would not be permitted to lead his evidence and his valuable right would be lost. 3. Mr. R.K. Temkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4, on the contrary, submits that the petitioner is throughout negligent in the proceedings and is making one attempt or another, so as to protract the proceedings. In support of his submission, an affidavit in reply has been filed by the respondent no.4 along with all relevant documents. 4. From the perusal of documents on record, it would reveal that since the present petitioner was not remaining present in the proceedings before the trial court, an application was filed by the plaintiffs on 8th September 2008 for closing evidence of the defendants. Vide order dated 3rd November 2008, finding that the defendant and his Advocate were repeatedly absent and that no steps were taken to lead evidence, the trial court has passed an order directing closure of evidence of the present petitioner. Subsequently, an application came to be filed by the present petitioner for setting aside the said order. The said application was allowed by order dated 22nd January 2009. Subsequently, another application came to be filed by the present (3) petitioner for issuance of summons to the defence witness. The said application was allowed vide order dated 5th March 2009 and the summons were directed to be re-issued. However, a special bailiff was directed to be appointed and the defendant i.e. the present petitioner was directed to see personally, that the summons are duly served on the witness. It appears that thereafter the application, on which the impugned order is passed, was filed by the present petitioner. The same is rejected since the defendant and his Advocate were absent on the said date also. 5. It can thus be clearly seen that though the trial court vide order dated 5th March 2009 had specifically directed the petitioner defendant to see personally that the summons are duly served on the witness by the next date, the petitioner had not even cared to deposit Bhatta. In these set of facts, it cannot be said that the trial court has committed error in rejecting the application. 6. In that view of the matter, no perversity could be found with the approach adopted by the trial court, so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... bgp/wp4564