1 wp11631.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11631 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Petitioner is plaintiff no.7, who played lead role in filing suit. Plaintiff no.2 expired, his legal heirs came on record. Thereafter, the evidence of plaintiff no.7 has been recorded. According to legal heirs of plaintiff no.2, the plaintiff no.7 has resiled from that role and has colluded with defendants. Therefore, they sought leave to cross- examine plaintiff no. 7 and that leave has granted by the trial Court. 2. Advocate Mr. C.R. Deshpande for petitioner contends that as plaintiffs are always on one side, one of the plaintiff can not permitted to be on other side i.e. to cross one of them and procedure followed by trial Court will create a new precedent. His contention in such 2 wp11631.10 situation, the legal heirs of plaintiff no.2 could have at the most sought transposition of plaintiff no.7 as defendant. 3. He has also relied upon the Judgment of Delhi High Court reported in "MANU/DE/0362/1994" (Mahesh Chander Dewan and another V/s Kanti Chander Dewan and others). According to him, learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court has found that in such circumstances transposition needs to be permitted to avoid clash of interest. 4. The position noted above clearly show that clash of interest here is on account of some subsequent development. During argument, learned counsel for petitioner tried to urge that other dispute intere-se between plaintiffs can not be looked into in the suit. There is nothing on record to show that trial Court permitted to bring alleged other dispute before it. If such dispute is attempted to be brought on record, the trial Court can very well take cognizance thereof and exercise appropriate powers in relation thereto. 5. Here it is apparent that as the plaintiff no.7 has played lead role, he has been retained as plaintiff and after considering the controversy the trial Court has permitted the other plaintiff to cross examine him. Learned counsel for petitioner is not in position to state any prejudice caused to him by such cross examination. 3 wp11631.10 6. I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity. Petition is rejected. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 13.01.2011 gas/wp11631.10