PER COURT :-

1. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits, on instructions,

that this petition is rendered infructuous.

2. In view of the above, this petition is disposed off as being

infructuous. Rule is discharged.

3. Pending civil application does not survive and stands disposed

off.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
…

akl/d

::: Uploaded on – 31/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on – 01/09/2019 05:07:28 :::

…

PER COURT :

1. None present on behalf of the petitioner and respondent Nos.

3 to 6.

2 List this petition for ”passing orders” on 05/09/2019.

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

shp/-

::: Uploaded on – 31/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on – 01/09/2019 05:06:52 :::

…

PER COURT :

1. None present for the petitioner.

2. Shri Kulkarni, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of

respondent No. 6 / Management submits that this petition is

rendered infructuous on account of the fact that if there are

less than 10 classes in a Junior College, the post of Supervisor

is not required. The said post was abolished in 2003 and after

considering the submissions of respondent No. 6, this Court

had passed a speaking order on 21/07/2003 and vacated the

interim relief granted. The petition was admitted.

::: Uploaded on – 31/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on – 01/09/2019 05:06:57 :::

…

PER COURT :

1. None present on behalf of the petitioner.

2 List this petition for ”passing orders” on 05/09/2019.

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

shp/-

::: Uploaded on – 31/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on – 01/09/2019 05:06:47 :::

1 TP/78/2019 ) Mr. Anil Harish, i/b. D. M. Harish & Co.,
) Advocate for petitioner
)
) P.C.: As per praecipe dated 31st August, 2019, Advocate
)
for petitioner is seeking for extension of time to
)
) carry out amendment in the petition as per order
)
dated 19.07.2019. Earlier, vide order dated 19th
)
) July, 2019 time was granted to carry out
)
amendment. Time to carry out amendment is
)
) extended.

1 TP/1863/2019 ) M/s. Kanga & Co., Advocate for petitioner
)
)
) P.C.: As per praecipe dated 31st August, 2019, Advocate
)
for petitioner is seeking for extension of time to
)
) carry out amendment in the petition as per order
)
dated 02.08.2019. Earlier, vide order dated 2nd
)
) August, 2019 time was granted to carry out
)
amendment. Time to carry out amendment is
)
) extended.

1 TP/26/2019 ) Mr. Amol B. Desai, Advocate for petitioner
)
)
) P.C.: As per praecipe dated 30th August, 2019, Advocate
)
for petitioner is seeking for extension of time to
)
) carry out amendment in the petition as per order
)
dated 19.07.2019. Earlier, vide order dated 19th
)
) July, 2019 time was granted to carry out
)
amendment. Time to carry out amendment is
)
) extended.

(In Chambers)
P.C. :-

Perused the Order dated 30th August, 2019. Today, Advocates for the parties

alongwith Dr. Ashok Anand, Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sir

J.J. Group of Hospital, Mumbai, have informed the Court that the minor is required to

be examined by the Heads of seven diferent Departments. The process of

examination is on, but is not yet completed. To complete the process and submit a

report to this Court, they need time upto 3 rd September, 2019. In view thereof, stand

over to 3rd September, 2019 at 3.00 p.m.

( S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. )

::: Uploaded on – 31/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on – 01/09/2019 03:18:40 :::

PER COURT :-

1. The applicant is the younger sister of the deceased wife of

respondent No.1. He was prosecuted for the suicidal death of his

wife. Finally, he was acquitted by the competent Court. A child born

to the deceased elder sister of the applicant, out of her marriage with

respondent No.1, is residing with the applicant and is seeking

education in the 8th Standard.

2. As soon as the applicant gathered knowledge of MCA No. 40

of 2017, filed by the respondent No.1 before the learned District

Judge, Beed under Sections 7 and 10 of the Guardians and Wards

Act, she had moved this application for seeking transfer of the said

proceedings to the learned District Judge at Newasa. The distance is

::: Uploaded on – 31/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on – 01/09/2019 05:07:11 :::
MCA/190/2019
2 of 3

about 180 kms. and the applicant finds it cumbersome to travel to

Beed for attending the said proceedings.

PER COURT :-

1. The petitioner / plaintiff is aggrieved by the order dated

7.12.2018, passed by the trial Court, by which, his application Exhibit

33 seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner in Special Civil Suit

No.9 of 2017, has been rejected.

2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has strenuously

criticized the impugned order. My attention is drawn to the 12

grounds formulated in the memo of the petition.

3. I find from Exhibit 33 that the petitioner seeks appointment of

an Advocate as a Court Commissioner for inspecting the suit property

and to find out whether the stone crusher kicks up clouds of dust and

is causing a nuisance to the petitioner. The suit is of 2017 and the

::: Uploaded on – 31/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on – 01/09/2019 05:07:36 :::
WP/10887/2019
2 of 3

application has been filed on 23.4.2018.