1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1450 OF 2009 Mrs.Shivlila W/o.Madhav Panchal Through G.P.A. Madhav S/o.Digambar Panchal PETITIONER VERSUS Pralhad S/o.Nathaji Ragade and others RESPONDENTS Mr.B.V.Dhage, advocate for petitioner Notices are yet to be served on the respondents. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 30/06/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present writ petition under Article 227 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner/original plaintiff has challenged the order passed below Exh.21, 66,67 and 68 in RCS No.1002/2007, by the 12th Civil Judge, J.D. Aurangabad. 2. Heard advocate for petitioner. With the assistance of advocate for petitioner, perused the record and proceeding alongwith the writ petition. The application at Exh.21 in RCS No.1002/2007 is at page no.23 of the compilation. This is an application filed by the petitioner requesting to give the directions to the defendants to produce the 2 documents showing his title to the suit property, which application was rejected by way of order dated 02/09/2008. Thereafter application at Exh.66 is for the examination of Jr.Engineer, M.S.E.B. Aurangabad and Ward Officer, Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad on the ground whether the petitioner has consumed the electricity from the metre installed in the premises of the respondent defendant, which application was rejected vide order dated 16/01/2009. The similar application is at Exh.67 and on the same ground, it was rejected. Application at Exh.68 is an application seeking adjournment of 3 months, which was rejected by the Trial Court. 3. The suit filed by the petitioner/original plaintiff against the respondents/original defendants for damages as the petitioner was running the business of xerox, lamination in her shop of the suit premises. The respondents alleged to have purchased the property from the original landlord and doing the business of welding in their premises, which is adjacent to the shop premises of the petitioner plaintiff. As it is pleaded in the plaint by the petitioner plaintiff that on the day i.e. on 01/05/2007, at about 4.30 p.m., due to the negligent act of the respondents, fire took place to the machinery i.e. xerox machine and other machinery installed in the shop premises of the petitioner plaintiff and due to the fire, there was damages caused to that machinery as the machinery was burnt in the fire. In view of this pleadings, the burden lies on the petitioner plaintiff to prove whether the fire took place to his machinery due to the negligent act 3 of the defendants and no other issue is require to be considered. Considering this aspect, the application for calling the documents to show the ownership of the respondent was rejected by the Trial Court. The application for issuance of witness summonses to the Jr.Engineer, M.S.E.B. Aurangabad and to the Ward Officer, Municipal Corporation Aurangabad, about the consumption of electricity was also rejected by the Trial Court and the application for adjournment of 3 months was rejected by the Trial Court. In all these orders, I do not find any fault as these witnesses are nowhere related in the subject matter of the suit pending on the file of Trial Court. Lastly, when the orders are instantly passed, then to ask for adjournment of 3 months which was rejected by the Trial Court also find no fault. Hence writ petition is devoid of any merit. Writ petition stands disposed of at the stage of admission itself in limine with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/wp1450.09