1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETN. NO.2393/2011 Ku.Lalita d/o Papa Makde and another -vs- Smt.Jyoti Wd/o Motilal Madke and others WRIT PETN. NO.2394/2011 Ku.Munnabai wd/o Papa Makde and others -vs- Smt.Jyoti Wd/o Motilal Madke and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri C.V.Sakhare, learned counsel for the petitioners. Ms Mala Mukharjee, learned counsel for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 17.08. 2011 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By this petition the petitioners impugn the order passed by the trial Court on 18/03/2011 rejecting the objection of the petitioners for discarding the evidence of plaintiff No.1-Jyoti on affidavit. It is the case of the petitioners that plaintiff No.1-Jyoti could not have been permitted to tender evidence after the other witnesses were examined by the plaintiffs without obtaining any leave of the Court as contemplated by Rule 3A of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2 The trial Court however on perusal of the facts of the case and on an appreciation of the controversy in question, came to the conclusion that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants in case Jyoti’s evidence was recorded after the evidence of the other witnesses. By the impugned order dated 18/03/2011, the Court indeed granted leave to the plaintiff No.1 to lead her evidence in order to enable the Court to effectively and correctly determine the controversy between the parties. The Court also considered the fact that though the defendants had received the copies of the evidence on affidavit on 14/10/2010, they did not object to the same and the plaintiff No.1 tendered oral evidence in examination-in-chief. The order appears to be just and proper, as ample reasons are recorded by the Court for granting permission to Jyoti-respondent No.1 to tender evidence in the case after the evidence of some other witnesses is recorded. In the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE