1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3735 OF 2009, 1. UTTAMRAO RAOJI RAUT. .. PETITIONER/S. VERSUS 1. DATTA TATERAO PATIL & OTHERS. .. RESPONDENT/S. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri P.S.Tiwari h/f. Shri A.S.Kilor, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 02, 2009. 1. Heard. 2. This petition by the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 288 of 1993 takes exception to the order passed by the learned Civil Judge on an application by the defendant permitting re-examination of witness No.1 of the defendant No.4. This witness Ramchandra has been asked by the plaintiff during cross-examination, as to whether he has signed “Saude Chitthi” in 2006 and the witness had categorically answered that it was true that he signed “Saude Chitthi” in 2006. The defendant first alleged that even before the witness answered the question or could understand the question the learned Judge had recorded the answer. 2 This allegation was made in the application at Exh. 166. This application was then withdrawn and another application was filed, which is at Exh.167 and which was allowed by the impugned order. The learned Judge in the impugned order has observed that in the interest of justice and for the purpose of fair trial and to avoid ambiguity it was necessary to allow the defendant to put a question to the witness as to when he has signed the “Saude Chitthi”. Now, in fact, there was no ambiguity, no question of fair trial or interest of justice, since the learned Judge had himself recorded that it was true that “Saude-Chitthi” was signed in 2006. 3. All the same, it would not be appropriate to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction in recording of evidence by the trial Court. The trial Court would undoubtedly see the worth of the witness if the witness again turns around and consider it while appreciating the evidence. With this observation, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE RR.