1 W.P.No.2444/11 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2444 OF 2011. 1. Sayyed Javed Sayyed Ibrahim, Age 43 years, Occ.Business, through G.P.A. holder of petitioner No.2 to 10 also. 2. Sayyed Ashrf Ali Sayyed Ibrahim, Age 51 years, Occ.Business, 3. SayyedJakir Sayyed Ibrahim, Age 40 years, Occ.Business. 4. Sayyed Parvinbi Sayyed Ibrahim, Age 38 years, Occ.Business. 5. Sayyed Najamunnasa Sayyed Ibrahim, Age 67 years, Occ.Household. 6. Sayyed Parvej Sayyed Ibrahim, Age 36 years, Occ.Business. 7. Sayyed Jamir Sayyed Ibrahim, Age 34 years, Occ.Business. 8. Sayyed Shahin Sayyed Ibrahim, Age 32 years, Occ.Business. 9. Sayyed Bilkish Sayyed Ibrahim, Age 30 years, Occ.Business. 10. Sayyed Riswana Sayyed Ibrahim, Age 20 years, Occ.Business, All R/o Jama Masjid Road, Sayyed Nagar, Jamkhed, Tq.Jamkhed, Dist.Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners. 2 W.P.No.2444/11 Versus 1. Shaikh Kayyum Shabbir Subhedar, Age 43 years, Occ.Business. 2. Shaikh Sadik Shabbir Subhedar, Age 41 years, Occ.Business. 3. Shaikh Nayyum Shabbir Subhedar, Age 40 years, Occ.Business. All R/o In front of Old Bus Stand, Opp. S.T. Depot, Jamkhed, Tq. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar... Respondents. ... Mr.K.S.Bhore, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Wagh, advocate for the Respondents. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 13.06.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel, the petition is taken for final hearing. 2. The present petitioner is original defendant. He had filed an application Exh.108 for adjournment which came to be allowed but with the rider that the petitioner shall not alienate, 3 W.P.No.2444/11 create third party interest nor shall change the nature of the suit property. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application Exh.123 for modification of the said order. The learned trial Judge modified the said order by keeping restraint to the extent of not changing the nature of suit property but directed that the petitioner shall not alienate or create third party interest in respect of the suit property. Thereafter, again an adjournment application came to be filed at Exh.148 for adjournment for the reasons stated in the said application. The learned trial Judge allowed the said application subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand). Being aggrieved by the order passed below Exh.123, thereby restraining the petitioners from alienating or creating third party interest in respect of the suit property and also order Exh.148 awarding cost of Rs. 3,000/-. The petitioners have filed the present petition. 3. Mr.Bhore, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier also the 4 W.P.No.2444/11 suit was filed by the present Respondents in which injunction was not granted in their favour. Earlier also for same purpose application was filed but not pressed by the plaintiffs on the premise that the suit would be disposed of expeditiously. The Court below could not have clamped such an injunction at this stage. The learned counsel further submits that in view of provisions of Order 17 rule 1 of the C.P.C. (Bombay Amendment), the Court could not have awarded such an exorbitant cost. 4. Mr.Wagh, learned counsel for the Respondents vehemently opposes the petition on the ground that the plaintiffs had not pressed the application for injunction solely for the reason that the suit was to be decided expeditiously. The petitioners are protracting the trial willfully and deliberately. Series of adjournments were sought. The cost i.e. awarded is the effect of the conduct of the petitioners during the trial. No fault can be found with the order imposing cost. The Court is empowered to impose the cost. The same is the discretion of 5 W.P.No.2444/11 the Court. 5. It is not disputed that the plaintiff has closed his evidence. The defendants have also examined themselves and the matter is posted for evidence of other witnesses of the defendants. In such circumstances, the order restraining the petitioners from alienating the property need not be interfered, more particularly, in view of the fact that the case is at the final stage of the suit. Even otherwise, the same would be an innocuous relief as no decision on merit has been taken. 6. So far as awarding the costs is concerned, the Courts are bound by statutory provisions. The Courts can not over-ride the same. While passing the impugned order, no reasons are mentioned for awarding the cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand). The order reads as under : "Read say. Adjournment granted subject to cost of Rs.3,000/-. Advocate of plaintiff to communicate the cell no. to advocate of defendant 6 W.P.No.2444/11 for further contact." Perusal of the order it is manifest that it is sans any reason. Order 17 Rule 1 of sub-rule (2) of the C.P.C. (Bombay Amendment) reads as under : The Court would award cost occasioned by adjournment not exceeding Rs.50/- (Rupees fifty) in ordinary suits and Rs.100/- (Rupees hundred) in Special Civil Suits." The present suit is a Regular Civil Suit. If the Court wants to invoke Section 35-A or Section 35- B while imposing costs then it has to give reasons for the same. In the present case no reasons are given for imposing cost of Rs.3,000/- so as to deviate from order 17 Rule 1 sub-rule (2) (Bombay Amendment). 7. In light of the above, I am inclined to quash the order below Eh.148 dated 15.3.2011, imposing cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand). Instead of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three 7 W.P.No.2444/11 thousand), the petitioners shall pay cost of Rs. 50/- (Rupees fifty). 8. In the result, the Writ petition is partly allowed as per above observations. The petitioners have assured to cooperate for the expeditious disposal and the learned trial Judge shall endeavour to dispose of the suit expeditiously. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp2444.11