1 wp2667-11.sxw jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2667 OF 2011 Ramesh Babanrao Patil .. Petitioners and others Versus The Commissioner, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation, and others .. Respondents Mr. A. M. Adgule, for the Petitioner CORAM: R. M. BORDE, J DATED : 22nd August, 2011 P. C. 1. This Court, by an order dated 6/4/2011, while issuing notice, recorded that the petition is likely to be disposed of finally at the admission stage. However, in spite of service of notice, none appear for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order passed below Exh.46 in Regular Civil Suit No.977 of 2006 decided on 7th February, 2010. 3. An application was presented by the petitioner plaintiff for recalling the order passed below Exh.44 by the trial Court and to permit the plaintiff to examine a witness. The petitioner, plaintiff desires to examine one Shri 2 wp2667-11.sxw B.N.Dabade, Junior Engineer of the Respondent Corporation. An application as tendered by the petitioner on earlier occasion for calling said witness was allowed and the witness also appeared before the court. However, as the witness was not possessed of necessary documents, he was discharged and was directed to bring relevant record alongwith him on adjourned date. The matter was adjourned on two consecutive dates, thereafter. 4. It appears that the suit was posted for recording of evidence on 31st August, 2010. However, as the plaintiff did no take any steps for calling the witness and for leading further evidence in the matter, the Court recorded an order that evidence of the plaintiff shall be deemed to have been completed. The petitioner- plaintiff tendered an application at Exh.46 for recalling the order passed on 31st August, 2010 and for permitting him to examine additional witness. Said application has also been turned down. The plaintiff has therefore approached this Court, by presenting the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have heard the argument advanced by the 3 wp2667-11.sxw learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 6. None appears for the respondent, though served. 7. Considering the contentions raised in the application Exh.46, the trial Court ought to have exercised discretion in favour of the plaintiff and should have extended an opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence in the matter. 8. In order to met the meet the ends of Justice, I deem it appropriate to extend an opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence in the matter. The plaintiff shall take necessary steps for calling the witnesses whom he wants to examine and shall examine the witness on the given date. 9. The plaintiff shall not ask any unnecessary adjournment in the matter and shall complete the evidence on his part, without unnecessary delay. 10. The trial court shall consider the application that may be presented by the plaintiff for calling the witness and shall proceed to record the evidence of such witness on the given date. 11. The order passed by the trial Court below Exh.46 in RCS No. 977 of 2006 dated 7th February, 2011 is quashed 4 wp2667-11.sxw and set aside. 12. Rule is accordingly made absolute. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R. M. BORDE, J.)