1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8541 OF 2009 Manohar s/o Gopal Borole, Age: 56 years, Occu.Agri., r/o Kolvad, Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Sau.Kusum Chandrakant Patil, Age: Major, Occu.Household, r/o Halle Vasti, Suvich Sadan, 7, Bhagirath Colony, Jalgaon. and three others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.Hemant Surve, Adv., for the respondents. ... CORAM: R.K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE :11/8/2010 *** PER COURT : 1. This writ petition challenges the orders dt.29.4.2009, 17.6.2009 and 14.10.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yawal, in Regular Civil Suit No.3/2006. 2 2. From the order dated 29.4.2009, it appears that the matter was fixed for evidence of the defendant, however, the defendant remained absent and has not filed any affidavit on record. No application for adjournment was filed and hence, the matter was fixed for arguments. 3. From the order dated 17.6.2009, it appears that the defendant and his Counsel remained absent and no evidence was led by the defendants and hence, the evidence of the side of the defendants was closed. The case was fixed for arguments. 4. From the order dt.8.7.2009, it seems that the application filed by the defendant to provide an opportunity to lead evidence has been rejected. 5. From the order dated 14.10.2009, it appears that there was no application filed for adjournment by the defendant. The defendant remained absent inspite of sufficient opportunities and hence, the matter was posted for oral hearing. 6. Shri Hemant Survey, learned Counsel appears for all the respondents who are plaintiffs and submits that several applications are made from 22.11.2009 for grant of adjournment 3 on the ground that the present writ petition is pending before this Court. The matter is not moved till this date. Even notices are not issued. Since it came to the notice of plaintiffs, they have instructed Shri Surve to appear in this matter. Today, when the matter is called out, none present for the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the present petition and from what has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents and from the orders impugned in this petition it seems that the petitioner is interested only in protracting the litigation. The trial Court, therefore, did not commit any error in passing the orders, which calls for any interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. In view of above, the instant writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. one Thousand ) to be paid by the defendant in the trial Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this writ in the trial Court. If such amount is not paid, the trial Court shall proceed for recovery, in accordance with law. [R.K.DESHPANDE, J.] agp/8541-09wp 4