(1) 26wp3412.25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 26 WRIT PETITION NO. 3412 OF 2025 KISAN SITARAM WAYBHAT AND ANOTHER ….Petitioners VERSUS NILAWATI SAHEBRAO MANE AND OTHERS …..Respondents Mr. Girish K. Naik Thigle, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Dhananjay Mane, Advocate for the respondent CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATE : 25th MARCH, 2025 P. C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate for respondent No.1. 2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 15- 01-2025 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Beed on application below Exh.114. The application was filed seeking to set aside the ‘evidence close’ order dated 09-12-2024. The learned trial judge had passed the order closing the evidence of petitioners-original defendant Nos. 4 and 5. In the application Exh.114 it is only stated that the petitioners could 1 of 3 2025:BHC-AUG:9186 (2) 26wp3412.25 not remain present because of domestic difficulty. The learned advocate was also not well and therefore, he could not remain present. Further it is stated that there is no malafide in not remaining present before the court. 3. The learned trial judge observed that the application lacks in bonafide. No evidence is given to show that difficulty. It is further observed that the application is made at the stage where the plaintiff has already advanced the final argument on 10-01-2025 and the suit was posted for argument of the respondents. With this reason application came to be rejected. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioners vehemently argued that the valuable right to lead the evidence is taken away. Suit is in respect of the partition involving the immovable properties. If the defendants/petitioners are not given opportunity to lead evidence, it would cause prejudice to their rights. He thus, prays for allowing the petition. 5. The learned advocate for respondents, on the other 2 of 3 (3) 26wp3412.25 hand vehemently opposed the petition. He submits that the stage at which the application is filed, itself shows intention of the petitioners to protract litigation. There is nothing in the application showing as to what prevented the petitioners for coming to the court. There is no record to show as to why the advocate was also not present on the date, on which evidence close order was passed. Argument of the petitioners is already over. The trial court has therefore, rightly rejected the application. 6. Considering the order passed by the learned trial court and the argument advanced at bar, this court finds no case is made out to quash and set aside the impugned order. In view of above, the petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. Since the argument of the plaintiffs is already over, trial court is expected to dispose of the suit within three months from today. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] VishalK/26wp3412.25 3 of 3