Indrabai Baburao Jadhav vs Gopinath Maroti Jadhav
2016 Latest Caselaw 2020 Bom

                                              1                                    WP/149/2016


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                                      
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 149 OF 2016




                                                              
    Smt. Indrabai w/o Baburao Jadhav,
    Age : 72 years, Occu. : Agril.,
    R/o Digol (E), Tq. Sonpeth,
    District Parbhani                                                    .. Petitioner




                                                             
                                                                       (Orig. Plaintiff)

         Vs.

    Gopinath S/o Maroti Jadhav,




                                                 
    Age : 70 years, Occu.: Agril.,
    R/o Digol (E), Tq. Sonpeth,   
    District Parbhani                                                     .. Respondent
                                                                       (Orig. Defendant)
                                 
                                       ----
    Mr. M.P. Kale, Advocate for the petitioner
    MR. S.V. Warad, Advocate for the respondent/sole
                                       ----
      


                                           CORAM            : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

                                           DATE             : 28-04-2016
   



    ORAL JUDGMENT :





                     Rule.      Rule made returnable forthwith.            Heard finally with

    consent of the parties.

2. Looking at the state-of-affairs prevailing in the suit that no

written statement order has been passed against the defendant and an

application has been moved for setting aside the same, which is

pending, and further having regard to that care has been taken while

passing the impugned order by the court, granting liberty to the

petitioner to move an application for calling witness on proper

2 WP/149/2016

ground, having regard to the state-of-affairs aforestated, it is not a

case wherein at this stage, the discretion should be exercised in favour

of the petitioner. As such the petition is not being entertained and is

rejected, keeping the rights of the plaintiff open for making an

application again for the purpose for which the earlier application had

been moved.

3. Rule stands discharged. Interim relief granted earlier

stands vacated.

                                   ig          [SUNIL P. DESHMUKH]
                                                       JUDGE
                                 
    arp/