1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 1188 of 2008 [Sk. Ab. Raut Sk. Bhiken Vs. Asstt. Charity Commr.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.J. Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Kshirsagar, Advocate for Caveator, who is not a party. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 01st April,2008. 1. Heard. 2. Petitioner is challenging the orders passed below Exh.27 in Change Report No. 249/2000 and Exh.20 in Change Report No. 252 of 2000, both dated 5th December, 2007. 3. Petitioner wants that the proceedings under Section 41A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act should not proceed and, in fact, for that purpose, he has followed a circuitous way and wants Change Report proceedings to be stayed. 4. Petitioner alleges that he is keen on proper functioning of Society and wants elections to be held, however, does not want 2 that Change Reports should be heard and decided. 5. The request is neither bona fide nor legal. The prayers have been rightly rejected by the Trial Court. 6. In the circumstances, no interference is called for. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge |Hedau| 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 4155 of 2007 [V.B. Murarka Vs. R.N. Kashyap] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. H.B. Gaikwad, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 01st April,2008. Heard. Petition be restored as Writ Petition No.4155 of 2007. Judge |Hedau| 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 4155 of 2007 [V.B. Murarka Vs. R.N. Kashyap] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. H.B. Gaikwad, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 01st April,2008. 1. The Writ Petition is called for hearing. 2. Heard. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though evidence by affidavit was filed on 7th July, 2003, the defendant could not offer himself for cross-examination on the date fixed, namely 17th July, 2003. The reason assigned in the petition is that on 17th July, 2003, the 5 petitioner was suffer from gastro enteritis. 4. It is not shown that the petitioner was rendered so grossly unable to attend the Court and for that purpose, move or sit in the Court. 5. It is seen that the suit is of 1999 and evidence by affidavit was filed only on 7th July, 2003, that too when the request for grant of further time was rejected. 6. These are the proceedings for ejectment after seeking permission of the Rent Controller for terminating the tenancy. The landlord's right to secure possession is already concluded. Even in the petition, nothing is stated, except what is averred in paragraph 3, which reads as follows:- “3. ....Along with the said application, the matter certificate was also filed, which clearly shows that on 17/7/2003, the petitioner was suffering from Gastro Enteritis from 17/7/2003 and he was advised rest and treatment for 4 days with effect from 17/7/2003. ....” 7. Even before this Court, the petitioner does not aver that he was so unwell to be able to move. This Court is, therefore, driven to believe that routine reasons, such as gastro enteritis or colic pain, back ache et al, are such grounds for which Medical Certificates are secured for the sake of asking and are relied 6 upon. 8. The petitioner ought to have produced affidavit of his family members that he was so gravely unwell and was confined to bed and hence was unable even to move upto the Court. The petitioner ought to have moved for appointment of a Commissioner also and forthwith cross- examination. The overall effort is to avoid hearing. 9. In these premises, and particularly when the landlord is asking for eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement and the said need has been adjudicated, the proceedings of eviction cannot be stalled by permitting adjournments on flimsy reasons. 10. Thus, the order is not shown to be otherwise illegal or erroneous. There is no error of law or of jurisdiction. 11. In the circumstances, petition has no merit. It is, therefore, dismissed. Judge |Hedau| 7