1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1412 OF 2010 (Naresh B. Uikey vs. Mohd. Kalam s/o Pir Mohd. Sheikh & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JUNE 08, 2010. Heard Shri Paunikar, learned counsel for the petitioner – original plaintiff. Nobody appears for the respondents even on second call. There was no appearance even on 04.05.2010. Shri Paunikar, learned counsel states that the petitioner – plaintiff examined power of attorney and as certain documents could not be exhibited in his evidence, leave was sought to examine original plaintiff after cross examination of that power of attorney. That application has been rejected. According to him, the approach adopted by the Court below is erroneous and too technical. The documents are already on record and necessary pleadings also exist. He, therefore, states that interest of justice demanded that leave should be given to the petitioner – plaintiff to enter witness box to exhibit only those documents. I have perused the impugned order passed below Exh. 108 on 07.12.2009. The perusal of said order shows that the Court has been influenced by its 2 earlier order passed below Exh. 103 on 04.04.2009. The said order relied upon the provisions of Order 18, Rule 3(a) of Civil Procedure Code which makes it mandatory for the parties to enter witness box first. However, the perusal of application at Exh. 103 itself reveals that that application was not pressed by the petitioner – plaintiff and this fact is also commented by the trial Court in the impugned order dated 07.12.2009. Thus the only reason given by the trial Court is, the petitioner – plaintiff did not enter witness box before examining his power of attorney. The trial Court has not found that there was any effort to fill in any lacunae and any prejudice would be caused to any other side if the petitioner is allowed to enter witness box. Before this Court, Shri Paunikar, learned counsel has specifically stated that the petitioner wants to enter witness box only to prove the documents which have remained un-exhibited in the evidence of his power of attorney. In view of this clear statement made, I find that the interest of justice demands grant of opportunity to the petitioner – plaintiff to prove the documents which are already on record. In view of this, impugned order passed below Exh. 108 on 07.12.2009 is quashed and set aside. The order passed below Exh. 103 on 04.04.2009 need not be considered because that application was not pressed at all by present petitioner and hence there was no need to pass any order on that application. 3 Application at Exh. 108 is allowed. The petitioner – plaintiff is permitted to enter witness box only to prove the documents which have been left un- exhibited in the evidence of his power of attorney. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.