SSK/907.sb 1 WP.456.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.456 OF 2011 Pradip Walchand Raka ....Petitioner Versus Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Rajesh S. Datar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate, i/b. Mr. Amol Mhatre for the respondents. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 10TH MARCH, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Datar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel for the respondents. 2. The proceedings are filed before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, at the instance of Bhiwandi-Nizampur City Municipal Corporation under Section 12 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (in short “the BPMC Act”) to hold enquiry whether the respondent no.2 had incurred disqualification under Section 10(1)(i) of the BPMC Act. It is the case of the respondent nos. 1 that respondent no.2 has begotten fourth child after introduction of Section 10(1)(i) in the BPMC SSK/907.sb 2 WP.456.11 Act. The respondent no.2 has filed written statement and contended that his first three children were begotten prior to 1999. The fourth child was begotten on 7th April, 2001, however, his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 7th November, 2001. He has specifically averred that he approached the Tahsildar for correction of the date of birth, and the Tahsildar by his order dated 19th January, 2006, held that the respondent no.2’s fourth son “Vansh” was begotten on 7th April, 2001. 3. The respondent no.1 examined himself and he has also examined Tahsildar, Bhiwandi. The Tahsildar,Bhiwandi in his evidence at the instance of respondent no.1 stated that he could not find any of the documents in his office mentioned in the summons issued to him. 4. The respondent no.1, thereafter, applied to the trial court by filing application at Exh. “98” to recall Tahsildar-Bhiwandi for the purpose of examining him in respect of the document dated 19th January, 2006. This application was rejected by the trial court, and therefore, the present petition. 5. It is the specific contention of the respondent no.2 in his written statement that the date of birth of his fourth child “Vansh” is already corrected by Tahsildar by the order dated 19th January, 2006, therefore, SSK/907.sb 3 WP.456.11 naturally the burden lies on the petitioner to produce and prove this document and for that purpose, the Tahsildar is not required to be recalled, especially when the respondent no.2 refused to cross-examine him earlier. In my view, the respondent no.2 having lost an opportunity to cross- examine the Tahsildar, now, once again cannot request the trial court to recall him. In any case, there will not be any prejudice to the respondent no.2, in view of his assertion in the written statement. The respondent no.2 also can produce this order by examining himself. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)