1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8513 OF 2010 Sambhajirao Baburao Desai ...Petitioner. v. Smt. Swati Anandrao Jadhav ...Respondent. Mr.Rahul S. Kate, adv., for the petitioner. Mr.D.W.Bhosale, adv., for the respondent. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 26th October, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner before this court is the original plaintiff. He has filed Special Civil Suit No.325 of 1995 for damages on the ground that the defendants had published some defamatory material against him. After completing his evidence on 18.3.2009, plaintiff filed pursis closing his evidence. Thereafter, defendant/respondent also led the evidence and also filed pursis on 13.9.2010 closing defence evidence. After the defence evidence was closed, plaintiff moved another application, Ex.165 seeking permission to examine five more witnesses contending that after considering the matter carefully, he found that some more evidence is required. Application was opposed. After hearing the parties, the trial Court rejected his application. Hence, this petition. 2 2 Plaintiff/petitioner had taken his sufficient time and after he had completed his evidence, defendant also led the evidence. That evidence was also closed. No valid reasons were given to examine any more witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff. Application does not state that due to certain material, which had come in the evidence of defendant, it has become necessary for the plaintiff to examine some witness. Merely because after considering the whole case carefully, again he felt that five more witnesses should be examined could not be ground to give him such a permission. Suit is already 15 years old. It appears that the petitioner is only interested in prolonging the suit and not in decision. This petition is also filed without justification. 3 Therefore, petition stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/­ to be deposited with the trial Court within four weeks. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) 3