(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2470 OF 2011 Musa Maheboob Shaikh, Age : 57 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Bodhegaon, Taluka : Shevgaon, .. Petitioner District : Ahmednagar. (Original plaintiff) versus Mainuddin Tajuddin Pathan, Age : Major, R/o. C/o. Office of Forest Officer, Manik Daundi Road, Pathardi, Taluka : Pathardi, .. Respondent District : Ahmednagar. (Original defendant) ....................... Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate, for the petitioner. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 31ST MARCH 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, for the petitioner / original plaintiff. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 4-2-2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shevgaon, below Exhibit 119 in Regular Civil Suit No. 148/2008, thereby allowing application of the respondent / defendant seeking to close the evidence of plaintiff. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 7-3-2011 below Exhibit 121 in the said suit, thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner / plaintiff seeking to set aside the earlier order dated 4-2-2011 whereby evidence of the plaintiff was ordered to be closed. 3. It is apparent that after noticing several adjournments given to petitioner / plaintiff, trial court accepted request of defendant and closed his evidence. Immediately on next date thereafter, petitioner / plaintiff appeared and sought leave to examine a witness stating that witness is present and his affidavit is also filed. That request is also rejected by the trial court. 4. Adv. Mr. S.S. Jadhavar contends that looking to the (3) stakes involved in the matter, the trial court ought to have given one such opportunity. He further states that respondent / defendant can be compensated reasonably and the matter can be made time bound. 5. The petitioner / plaintiff did not take steps till the trial court closed the evidence. In the application moved thereafter, no reasons are assigned as to why those steps could not be taken earlier. Thus, just for asking, the petitioner / plaintiff expected the trial court to recall its earlier order. The respondent / defendant has strongly opposed the prayers of plaintiff before trial court. 6. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2470