1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9247 OF 2009 Rakesh Bhimram Shukla .. Petitioner versus Nalini Dwarkadas Patel & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.M.S.Lagu for the petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 6th January 2010. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who is the original plaintiff. The challenge in this petition is to an order passed by the trial Court on 22nd September 2009 by which application made by the petitioner at Exhibit 94 has been rejected. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. An affidavit of a witness has been also filed thereafter. The prayer made in the application at Exhibit 94 was essentially for passing an order under Rule 3A of Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) for permitting the petitioner to examine his witness before he himself is examined. The second prayer in the application is that the petitioner be permitted to file a supplementary affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief in view of the fact that after his earlier affidavit was filed, it is allegedly revealed that the original sale deed is not available in the office of the Sub-Registrar of Assurances. 2 3. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I find that trial Court was justified in not exercising discretion under Rule 3A of Order XVIII of the said Code by permitting recording of evidence of the witness before the evidence of the petitioner is recorded. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the 2nd prayer in the application at Exhibit 94 has not been specifically dealt with. Notwithstanding the rejection of this application, it will be open for the petitioner to make a fresh application before the trial Court seeking permission to file supplementary affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. It is obvious that if such fresh application is made, the trial Court will consider the same on its own merits without being influenced by the impugned order. 4. Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)