1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. LPA No.80 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.3566/2007 (V.D. Singhaniya .vs. V.G. Patil) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders ======================================= Mr. A.R. Patil, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for Respondent. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE, & R.C.CHAVAN, JJ DATED : MARCH 12, 2008 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The respondent/landlord instituted suit for eviction of the appellant/tenant on the ground that the landlord wanted to open a medical shop in the suit premises in possession of the tenant. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 16.4.2003. The appeal preferred by the tenant was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 29.6.2006. Thereafter there was remand by the High Court to the appellate Court and the appellate Court was directed to decide the appeal on or before 17.7.2007. On 3.7.2007 the tenant 2 moved two separate applications (Exhs.42 and 43) one for amendment in his written statement to the effect that the landlord made construction of shops and he was about to lease them and by another application the tenant prayed for permission to produce documents about construction of the said shops. Both these applications were dismissed by the appellate Court by order dated 12.7.2007 on the ground that the tenant made every attempt to delay the proceedings and secondly that he could have amended the written statement and could have produced documents in 2003 itself. Thereafter the appellate Court also dismissed the appeal on 17.7.2007. The tenant preferred writ petition challenging the judgments of the lower Courts. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and that is how the tenant is before us in LPA. 3. A bare perusal or the order dated 12.7.2007 passed by the appellate Judge rejecting the applications of the tenant (Exhs. 42 and 43) reveals that the plea was available to the tenant in 2003 itself or at the most in 2004 when the sanction to construction was given to the landlord. It is stated that the construction was completed in 2005, still no application for amendment of written statement was moved and the present 3 application was made as late as in 2007. It is thus obvious that the appellate Court was justified in observing that the applications Exh.42 and 43 were nothing but to delay the proceedings. In our view he was justified in dismissing those applications. We see no merit in the appeal in view of the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the appellate Court. The LPA is , therefore, dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant/tenant prays for protection for four weeks. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord strongly opposes this prayer on the ground that no such protection was granted by the learned Single Judge during the pendency of the writ petition. In view of this position the prayer is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE halwai