1 W.P. 7859.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7859 OF 2011 1. Babasaheb S/o Pandharinath Tribuvan Age : 51 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Bhaggav, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. : Aurangabad At present Khiradi, Tq. Kopergaon. 2. Navnath S/o Pandharinath Tribuvan Age : 46 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Bhaggav, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. : Aurangabad At present Khiradi, Tq. Kopergaon. 3. Dattu S/o Pandharinath Tribuvan Age : 41 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Bhaggav, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. : Aurangabad At present Sonawane Chal, Behind Borawake Chal, At Post, Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. Mathurabai Ashok Kopare Age : 45 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Bhaggav, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. : Aurangabad. 2 W.P. 7859.2011 - [ J ] 2. Mangesh Ashok Kopare Age : 25 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Bhaggav, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. : Aurangabad. 3. Balu Rakhmaji Tribhuvan Age : 35 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Bhaggav, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. : Aurangabad. 4. Ramesh Rakhamaji Tribhuvan Age : 31 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Bhaggav, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. : Aurangabad. 5. Bhagubai Rakhamaji Tribhuvan Age : 65 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Bhaggav, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. : Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS Mr. L.P.Ghoderao, Advocate holding for Ms. Renuka Ghule, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.S.Shejwal, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 1 to 5. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 09/12/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 3 W.P. 7859.2011 - [ J ] 2. The present petitioners are the original plaintiffs, who had filed Suit for perpetual injunction. The plaintiffs led their evidence. The plaintiffs did not cross examine the defendants. The plaintiffs submitted an application for adjournment. The same came to be rejected and thereafter the defendants filed pursis closing their evidence. The plaintiffs have assailed the order rejecting the application for adjournment to cross examine the defendants. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 4. Mr. Shejwal, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the plaintiffs were given ample opportunity to cross examine the defendants, but the plaintiffs avoided and tried to prolong the matter. The trial Court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the impugned order. 6. The order impugned shows that the application has been rejected on the count that the Suit is old one. In the adjournment application, the reason has been given that the wife of the Advocate 4 W.P. 7859.2011 - [ J ] of the plaintiffs was hospitalized and was to undergo surgery and on that count, adjournment was sought. The Advocate for the plaintiffs could not make himself available to conduct the matter. 7. In view of the above, I am inclined to quash and set aside the said order. 8. In the result, I pass the following order. The Writ Petition is allowed. 9. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘ B ’. No costs. 10. The plaintiffs shall co-operate in the expeditious disposal of the Suit. The plaintiffs shall cross examine the defendants on the next date. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/W.P. 7859.2011 - [ J ]