1 932-wp-1711-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1711 OF 2024 Pandurang S/o Dnyanoba Shinde (Dhokar) Age 40 years, Occ. Agri, R/o. D. Deshmukh, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. …..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Shrikrushna S/o Dnyanoba Shinde (Dhokar), Age: 52 years Occu: Agri, R/o Dighol Deshmukh, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. 2. Dnyanoba S/o Dhondiba Shinde (Dhokar) Age: 80 years, Occu: Agri, R/o Dighol Deshmukh, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. 3. Sulakshna W/o Abhiman Jadhav, Age: 50 years, Occu: Household, R/o Rui Dharur, Tq. Dharur, Dist. Beed. (As per Court Order dated 07.04.2025, petition stands abated against Respondent Nos.2 and 3) 4. Kantabai W/o Dnyanoba Shinde (Dhokar) Age: 70 years, Occu: Household, R/o Dighol Deshmukh, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. 5. Bhagwat S/o Dnyanoba Shinde (Dhokar) Age: 40 years, Occu: Agri, R/o Dighol Deshmukh, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. 6. Namdeo S/o Dnyanoba Shinde (Dhokar) Age: 34 years, Occu: Agri, R/o Dighol Deshmukh, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. 2025:BHC-AUG:17242 2 932-wp-1711-2024 7. Meera W/o Dilip Sarwade Age: 32 years, Occu: Household, R/o Padoli, Tq. Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad. 8. Chandrakala W/o Anil Kale Age: 38 years, Occu: Household, R/o Borgaon Kale, Tq. Dist. Latur. …..RESPONDENTS ______________________________________________________ Mr. R. D. Gaikwad h/f Mr. S. G. Kawade, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. R. P. Cheble, Advocate for Respondent no.1 ______________________________________________________ CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATED : 01ST JULY, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT :- . Vide order dated 06.09.2023, passed below Exhibit-1 in Regular Civil Suit No.110 of 2010, the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Renapur District Latur has discarded the evidence of witness of defendant no.5 in the said suit, whose examination-in-chief is filed vide Exhibit-175. 2. The learned Trial Court has observed that the said affidavit was filed on 10.07.2023, however, the witness was not coming forward for facing cross-examination by the plaintiffs. In that view of the matter, the order dated 06.09.2023, discarding his evidence came to be passed. 3 932-wp-1711-2024 3. The defendant no.5 in the Civil Suit has filed the present petition challenging the said order. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that despite sincere efforts, presence of witness could not be secured. He however states that the petitioner shall keep the witness present for facing cross-examination as and when directed by the learned Trial Court. He therefore submits that the order dated 06.09.2023 may be quashed. 5. Mr. R. P. Cheble, the learned Advocate for the respondent/plaintiff opposes the contention. He states that ample opportunities were granted to the petitioner to keep his witness present. 6. Having regard to the nature of controversy, it will be expedient in the interest of justice that the impugned order dated 06.09.2023 be quashed, subject to the condition that witness, whose examination-in-chief is at Exhibit 175, shall remain present before the learned Trial Court as and when directed for facing the cross-examination. It will be the responsibility of petitioner to keep the witness present in the Court as and when directed by the learned Trial Court till 4 932-wp-1711-2024 completion of cross-examination. 7. Having regard to the delay, cost of Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) is imposed on the petitioner. Cost of Rs.5000/- be paid on or before 31.07.2025 to the respondent/plaintiff. 8. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2010 and the defendant’s evidence is ongoing, the learned Trial Court is directed to decide the suit at the earliest and in any case on or before 30.06.2026. 9. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) Rushikesh/2025