1 WP.8446/2010 mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8446 OF 2010 Mr. Dharmesh N. Waigankar ...Petitioner Vs. Mrs. Prerna Dharmesh Waigankar ...Respondent Mr.Suraj S. Kudalkar for Petitioner CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 28TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. : 1. The Petition of the Petitioner husband was to be heard. Evidence was to be recorded. Names of six witnesses were given. One witness out of the six witnesses attended the Court. Another witness who was not in the list of witnesses also attended the Court. The Court recorded the evidence of both these witnesses. The other witnesses in the list of witnesses of the Petitioner were not produced before the Court. The Court was not inclined to adjourn the matter for recording the evidence of other witnesses. Hence the Court treated the evidence of the Petitioner as closed and called upon the Respondent to file her affidavit of evidence on the next date. 2 WP.8446/2010 2. There is nothing illegal or erroneous in the order of the Court. That order is discretionary. The discretion is seen to have been exercised judiciously. The Petitioner has desired to lead evidence of two other relatives. That evidence may be repetitious and redundant. Only the Court recording the evidence would know the extent of the evidence required after two witnesses are examined. That order must prevail. 3. The Petitioner’s Advocate argued that in the next week the other witnesses would remain present. That shows that the witnesses could have attended and there was no reason not to attend Court. That also shows that the Petitioner, and not the Court, would be incharge and conduct of the Court proceedings. It is for the Court to decide how to maintain its own board. Adjourning matters on the say of the parties without application of mind results in continuous delays and arrears, which the Court must avoid. The Court has sought to do precisely that. The Petitioner is bound and required to keep all the witnesses desired to be examined present in Court when the Court has directed. Courts to proceed smoothly. Only then delays would be avoided, and costs would be reduced. 4. In a case such as this, only then the repetitious evidence of other relatives would be appropriately appreciated, and if required, curtailed. It is, therefore, that the sound rule of 3 WP.8446/2010 procedure is to record evidence from day to day and continuously in one matter. In fact, it is gratifying to note that Court has followed the correct and desired procedure. 5. There is absolutely nothing incorrect on the record which can be corrected or interfered with. 6. The Writ Petition is dismissed. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)