1 FARAD CONSTITUTION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4712/2009 (Gawtya D. Nanhe ..vs.. Khwaja Garib Nawas co-op Soc. and another) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE:- NOVEMBER 04, 2009 The writ petition challenges the orders dated 24/09/2009 and 17/02/2009 whereby the present petitioner (defendant No.1) was not given an opportunity to lead evidence. Advocate Shri A.M.Rizwy for petitioner contends that suit is for specific performance and has been diligently contested by the petitioner. He further states that because of ill health, the petitioner could not enter the witness box and the Commissioner appointed for the purpose of recording evidence also could not record his evidence. He contends that in such circumstances, if an opportunity is not given, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss. Advocate Shri Gharote for the respondents points out that the application of petitioner was 2 rejected initially on 5th September, 2009 by passing orders below Exh.204 and then instead of challenging that order, appointment of Commissioner was sought. The Commissioner was accordingly appointed. The report dated 14/9/2009 does not show that petitioner was unwell. He further states that thereafter again efforts to seek an opportunity to lead evidence were made, but no document of any medical treatment from Government Hospital, to show health condition of the petitioner, were placed on record. He points out that the suit has been made time bound, to be decided by 7th December, 2009. He further states that after evidence of the petitioner was closed, defendant No.2 has already entered witness box and is likely to close his evidence today. He further states that petitioner has, during pendency of the suit, sold the property to respondent No.2 i.e. defendant No.2. The facts disclosed above clearly show that the petitioner is only trying to delay the decision of the suit, which has been already made time bound. He has not challenged the order dated 24/9/2009 immediately or then though writ petition challenging the order dated 07/10/2009 has been filed on 12/10/2009, no efforts were made to obtain immediate orders. The matter has already proceeded further. 3 In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE diwale.