wp9122.10 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9122 OF 2010 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. He submits that since original proceedings were pending at Ahmednagar and subsequently, the same came to be transferred to the court of CJJD, Rahuri. The petitioner was not aware about the said transfer. The petitioner was suffering from some ailment and to that effect, certificates are placed on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the pleadings and grounds taken in the petition and submitted that the trial Court should have allowed the application of the petitioner for taking written statement on record. wp9122.10 2 2 Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the contents of the application filed before the trial Court for taking written statement on record, it appears that the substantial reason which was stated in the said application was that the defendant No.2 - petitioner herein was suffering from Diabetes and hypertension. There is no any other reason stated in the application. 3 The trial Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the plaintiff's evidence is over and he has filed the evidence close purshis and the suit was placed for cross-examination of witness No.1 of defendant No.1 since 8th October, 2009. The application filed by the petitioner to take written statement on record came to be rejected. 4 In my opinion, there is no point in reiterating what is stated by the trial Court. wp9122.10 3 Suffice it to say that the suit is pending since 1999 and trial has substantially progressed and it is at fag end. In my opinion, there is no infirmity in the reasoning given by the trial Court. Possible view has been taken by the trial Court. No interference is called for in the impugned order. 4 Hence,the writ petition is dismissed. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) 14.12.2010. PLK/*