IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5559 OF 2024 Subhash Narhari Bhosle VERSUS Padminibai Manikrao Kubde Mr. S. K. Chavan, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. S. V. Mundhe, Advocate for Respondent CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 16th April, 2025 PER COURT :- 1. Leave to correct prayer clause. 2. This petition takes exception to the order dated 14.03.2024 passed below Exhibit 44 in Regular Civil Suit No. 377/2017 whereby the application filed by defendant for setting aside evidence in order dated 31.01.2024 as well as for re-issuance of summons to the notary came to be rejected. The facts appearing on the record indicate that plaintiff and defendant examined himself and defendant had sought issuance of witness summons to notary for proving the execution of agreement between plaintiff and defendant. Accordingly, witness summons was issued. Witness was present before the Trial Court on 18.01.2024. He however sought adjournment. Thereafter the Trial Court closed 967-WP-5559-2024.odt 1 of 3 2025:BHC-AUG:11384 evidence of the defendant by order dated 31.01.2024. Application Exhibit 43 was moved for setting aside the said order and re-issue of summons to the notary. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the fact of issuance of summons to the notary indicates that he is relevant witness. He further argues that witness was present and he sought adjournment and as such the defendant cannot be held responsible for the same. According to him non examination of this women would cause prejudice to the defendant. 4. Learned counsel for respondent-original plaintiff vehemently opposed the petition. 5. The order passed by the Trial Court for issuance of witness summons to the notary indicates that he is relevant witness for the decision of the case. Record further indicates that pursuant to the said summons, witness was present on 18.01.2024 and at his request, adjournment was granted. Defendant, therefore, cannot be held responsible for the same. In such circumstances, there is no justification for the Trial Court to close the evidence of the defendant. 6. In view of the above facts, impugned order is set aside. Order 967-WP-5559-2024.odt 2 of 3 dated 31.01.2024 passed by Trial Court to close evidence of defendants is set aside. Application Exhibit 44 stands allowed. Trial Court to issue summons to the notary. 7. Since, the suit is of year 2017, same be decided finally on merit within a period of 6 months. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) bsj 967-WP-5559-2024.odt 3 of 3