1 MCA 3.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.R.B.Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.M.M.Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for the respondent. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 25/04/2011 PER COURT : 1. The present application is filed by the wife for transfer of the proceedings from the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Nanded to the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmednagar. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. Mr. M.M.Patil (Beedkar), the learned counsel for the respondent submits that in fact the proceedings before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Nanded 2 MCA 3.2011 had proceeded further. Even the arguments are concluded and the matter is fixed for Judgment on 27/4/2011. A copy of the Roznama is filed, which shows that on 20/4/2011 the matter was for arguments. 4. Mr. R.B.Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the applicant does not dispute the position that the stage of argument is also over and the matter is kept for Judgment by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Nanded on 27/4/2011. But, the learned counsel contends that the lady is being dragged from one Court to another. It is because the proceedings is at Nanded, she could not effectively participate in the proceedings. Even the costs were denied to the petitioner. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Arjun Singh V/s Mohindra Kumar and others reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court – 993 has held that there is no hiatus between pronouncement of Judgment and reserving the case for Judgment because if the entirety of the hearing of the Suit has been completed and the Court being competent to pronounce the Judgment, then and there adjourns the Suit merely for the purpose of pronouncement of Judgment under Order XX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there is clearly no 3 MCA 3.2011 adjournment of the hearing of the Suit for there is nothing to be heard more in the Suit. 6. In light of the above, the present Misc. Civil Application would not survive and as such is disposed of. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/MCA 3.2011