SM 1 2.wp.9106.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9106 OF 2011 Shri. Vinod Vishanji Dharad ....Petitioner. Versus Shri. Hasan Mohamed Babulal Kothimire (since deceased), M/s. Khatijabi Hasan Moh. Koth ____ ....Respondents. ____________ Mr. R. D. Suryawanshi for the Petitioner. CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 28, 2011. P.C.: In the light of the directions to be issued, it is not necessary to issue notice. 2. The only relief sought by the present petitioner is that the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Thane who is in seisen of Regular Civil Suit No. 191 of 2009 be directed to dispose of the same by pronouncing the judgment, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two weeks from date. 3. The said suit has a chequered history inasmuch as the said suit was earlier decreed on 5th June, 1991. Thereafter, it appears that the said decree came to be set aside by the order SM 2 2.wp.9106.11 dated 6th January, 1998 in the Appeal filed by the defendant no. 3, i.e. M/s. Priya Darshani Enterprises; and the suit came to be remanded back to the Trial Court for the defendant no. 3 to participate in the proceedings and for a decision afresh. In view of the amendment to the Suit Valuation Act, the said Special Civil Suit No. 548 of 1990 came to be transferred to the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Thane and the suit was thereafter renumbered as Regular Civil Suit No. 191 of 2001. 4. The events which have transpired thereafter are not relevant for the purposes of the present petition and for the relief that the petitioner is seeking in the present petition. Suffice it to say that the defendants have been appearing in the said suit, the said suit was placed for hearing on 17th March, 2011 when written submissions were field on behalf of the plaintiffs and it has been recorded that the defendants and their advocates were absent. Thereafter, on the next date i.e. 31st March, 2011, the plaintiff and his advocate were present whereas the defendants and their advocate were absent. The plaintiff had filed draft issues. It has been recorded in the roznama that the suit was adjourned for exparte judgment /issues on 11th April, 2011. Thereafter, on 11th April, 2011, the regular court was not available and the incharge SM 3 2.wp.9106.11 court was busy with its own matters and again the matter was adjourned for exparte judgment/issues. 5. In the light of the aforesaid conspectus of facts as narrated above, in my view, it would be just and proper to direct the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Thane to hear and decide the said Regular Civil Suit No. 191 of 2001 by 31st January, 2012. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)