bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 6758 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6758 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 6758 OF 2008 Smt.Rupabai Mukund Bhoir ... Petitioner v/s Smt.Vanita Duryoudhan Patil & ors. ... Respondents Mr.G.S.Godbole i/by Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh for the petitioner. Mr.R.D.Suryawanshi for the respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 6TH OCTOBER, 2008 6TH OCTOBER, 2008 6TH OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge, Sr.Divn., Kalyan, on 25.9.2008 in Election Petition No.11 of 2005. 2. The main contention raised by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to lead evidence in the matter and in fact she was foreclosed from leading the evidence to prove that the seventh child had not been born on the date mentioned in the election petition. 3. A perusal of the order passed by the Civil Judge, 2 Sr.Divn., indicates that there is no material on record at all produced by the petitioner disclosing the date of birth of her seventh child. Even in the writ petition, there is no positive averment made that the child was born on a particular date. 4. The certificate of the doctor who was present at the time of the delivery of the child, was produced indicating that the child was born on 28.1.2002. The birth certificate of the child was also produced before the Court and, therefore, in my opinion, there is no error in the impugned order. There are no infirmities in the order which are required to be corrected in this Court’s writ jurisdiction. 5. Writ petition rejected. 6. Mr.Godble, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner requests for a stay of this order. Stay refused.