1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.2040 OF 2009 Bhagwandas J. Laungani ..Petitioner. Vs. S.M. Reddi and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. Charanjeet Chandrapal for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. ..... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 3rd November, 2009. P.C. : Both the impugned orders dated 5th March, 2009 and 10th August, 2009 are purely of an interlocutory nature and do not call for interference in proceedings in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction. By the first order the competent authority disposed of an application of the Petitioner which was to the effect that the Applicant may be called upon to lead evidence in person and not through a Constituted Attorney. The competent authority held that it was not open to the Court to dictate to the Applicant as to who should lead evidence. 2 Obviously it is for the Applicant to decide as to who should step into the witness box. The consequences would ofcourse be a matter to be considered when the application comes up for final decision. By the second order the competent authority has held that the Petitioner has forfeited the right of cross examination. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, it would be open to the Petitioner to move the competent authority afresh if he is so advised. In any event, since both the orders are of an interlocutory nature, no interference by this Court is warranted. The Petition is dismissed. ****