1 wp11008.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11008 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. S.K. Shinde holding for Mr. V.H. Dighe, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Y.S. Chaudhari, advocate for respondent no.1. 1. The petitioner-plaintiff had sought adjournment of one month. He was awaiting some development in the office of Consolidation Officer. That period of one month has already expired. Advocate Mr. S.K. Shinde holding for Mr. Dighe states that the recommendations of Consolidation Officer are now pending with the Superior Authority for sanction. Advocate Mr. Y.S. Choudhary for respondent no.1 opposes for adjournment. He states that even if the sanction is granted or refused, that order can be assailed by aggrieved party further and hence it is not decisive of controversy. According to him further progress of Civil proceedings can not be stalled for it. 2. Mr. Shinde pointed out that the respondent has 2 wp11008.10 filed an application before all the authorities including the Consolidation Officer threatening to proceed on hunger strike if the application of the petitioner is decided. 3. All these events are irrelevant and the Civil Court has to decide the matter before it on the strength of material which has come on record. The petitioner had sought adjournment of one month and that adjournment was rejected by the impugned order. 4. I find that the view taken by the trial Court is possible view. In any case that one month time has already expired. I therefore do not find it proper to interfere in the Petition in exercise of this jurisdiction at this stage. Petition is therefore rejected. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 18.01.2011 gas/wp11008.10