Mohd Afroz S/O Mohad Rafiq vs Ayesha Kausar W/O Mohd Afroz
2016 Latest Caselaw 6106 Bom

                                                                       M.C.A.92/2016
                                        1

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                             BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 92 OF 2016




                                                                           
    Mohd. Afroz s/o Mohd. Rafiq
    Age 30 years, Occu. Nil,




                                                   
    R/o H-5-22-54, New Gulmandi
    road, Aurangabad
    District Aurangabad                            .. Applicant

            Versus




                                                  
    Ayesha Kausar w/o Mohd. Afroz,
    Age 21 years, Occu. Household,
    R/o H.No. 1-13-66, Shahabazar,
    Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad                   .. Respondent




                                     
    Mr S.B. Choudhari, Advocate for applicant
    Mr Farooqui K.N. Advocate for respondent
                             
                                    CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

                                    DATE       : 17th October, 2016


    ORAL JUDGMENT
      
   



    1.      Rule. Rule returnable forthwith.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant urges that the matter may be

listed before another Presiding Officer, as grudge may be entertained

against him by the Presiding Officer before whom the proceedings are

pending.

4. It appears to be the case of the applicant that on the scheduled

date 7th December 2015, he was not in a position to attend the court

on account of illness and had attempted to seek time by tendering an

application through his friend. He claimed to have not received

M.C.A.92/2016

proper treatment at the hands of the Presiding Officer and as such, an

application had been moved to the Honourable the Chief Justice

making complaint about incident, however, subsequently, it appears

that the applicant has engaged professional service of an advocate

and accordingly, matter is being posted before the learned Presiding

Officer.

5. Though learned counsel apprehends grudge being entertained

by the Presiding Officer, it may be considered that now the applicant

has engaged professional services and the matter is to be dealt with

on facts, evidence and in accordance with law. The solitary incident in

this matter would not be given such significance which would

overwhelm the outcome in the matter on facts, evidence and law. In

such circumstances, it does not appear to be a case wherein

miscellaneous civil application can be considered.

6. Miscellaneous civil application, as such, stands rejected with

above observations. Rule stands discharged.

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JUDGE

vvr