(1) 5 wp 7765-2026 IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 7765 OF 2026 Shalikram Raghunath Ramteke VERSUS State of Maharashtra -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Pradnya Wadnere, Advocate h/f Mr. Abhijeet Khare, Advocate for petitioner Ms M.A. Barabde, AGP for respondent/State CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 29.09.2026 Heard. 2. The present petition challenges order below Exhibit 125 in Regular Civil Suit No. 271/2018. By way of said order, the 16th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, and A.C.J.M., Nagpur, has allowed the application and thereby set aside the order dated 18.02.2026 of no-evidence, subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/-. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP for respondent/State. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the suit which is filed for damages has been prolonged by the defendant-State for one reason or the other. She also points out that initially, a written statement was not filed, and an order of proceeding without written statement was filed against the State. She also submits that (2) 5 wp 7765-2026 it was only by way of indulgence by this Court that the written statement was permitted to be filed. She also submits that sufficient opportunity was granted to the defendant to file their evidence on affidavit, which is not availed of. 5. With the able assistance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the impugned order. In the impugned order, paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 records that even though application for adjournment were not supported by justifiable reasons, the said applications were earlier allowed. However, the Trial Court only to see to it that the suit is required to be decided on merit and to give one more opportunity to the defendants, has permitted the defendant State to file an affidavit on evidence. However, it has imposed cost while doing so. I find nothing wrong in the order of the Trial Court. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2011) 9 SCC 867, Shiv Cotex vs. Tirgun Auto Plast Private Limited and Others, and more particularly, para 14 and 15 thereof. In the said judgment, it is categorically held that misplaced sympathy and indulgence by the Appellate and Revisional Courts compound the malady further. However, this is not the present case. The Trial Court is deciding the suit and is not an Appellate or a Revisional Court. The facts in the present matter are entirely different. The said judgment, in my considered opinion, would not be applicable. Coming to the merits of the order, as I have already stated supra, that (3) 5 wp 7765-2026 in paragraph Nos. 4 and 5, the Trial Court, even though in a slipshod manner, has recorded reasons for allowing the application and has imposed cost. There is no perversity in the order. A discretion always lies with the Trial Court to allow such applications. There is no perversity or jurisdictional error. Interference under Article 227 is not warranted. Petition is therefore rejected. 7. Looking to the fact that the suit pertains to the year 2018, the Trial Court is directed to decide the suit within six months from today. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) Jayashree.. Signed by: Mrs. Jayashree Pethe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 01/10/2026 18:53:21