( 1 ) wp2318.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2318 OF 2010 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Jakir Khan Kale Khan Pathan & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.H. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J. DATED : 27.01.2011 P.C. :- 1. This petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner insurance-company submitted an application (Exh.C-10) dated 29.10.2009 seeking examination of one Dr. Ravi Wankhedkar in support of the defence. No particular reason was stated in the application as to why examination of Dr. Ravi Wankhedkar was necessary. However, learned Labour Judge allowed the application and issued ( 2 ) wp2318.10 summons to the witness. When the witness was to enter the witness box, objection was raised by filing application Exh. U-34. The objection of respondent No.1 was allowed by the Labour Court vide the impugned order dated 09.11.2009. By the impugned order the petitioner was prevented from examining P.W. Dr. Ravi Wankhedkar as a witness. 3. The Labour Court disallowed examination of the witness for the reason that the application of the petitioner did not disclose why witness was to be examined and said application was not founded on bonafide grounds. Since, said application was filed without stating adequate reason for examination of the witness, the necessity to pin point discrepancy in the two medical opinions and other relevant aspects, the impugned order cannot be faulted with. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to apply afresh by giving sound reasons for examination of any medical expert who is well concerned with the medical certificates or the field pertaining to the branch of medical problems which are put- forth by respondent No.1, in order to clarify the discrepancies. If such application is filed within three ( 3 ) wp2318.10 weeks before the Labour Court, then it may be duly considered after hearing both the sides. The application to be decided on its own merit, if it is so permissible to allow such examination. 4. The petition is accordingly dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2011/JAN11/wp2318.10