gst 1 wp2744.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 2744 OF 2011. Balasaheb Shamrao Nitawe... ..... ..... ..Petitioner. V/s Appasaheb @ Satgonda Raoji Patil .... .... ..Respondent. Mr.V.B.Rajure, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.Sandesh D. Patil, Adv. For the respondent. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 13th April, 2011 PC: By way of present petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 20.1.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur thereby directing the Court Commissioner to accept both the affidavits of the plaintiff in lieu of examination in chief. 2. A preliminary decree in suit for dissolution of partnership has been passed. In the further proceedings the Court Commissioner was appointed by the learned trial Court. In the said proceedings plaintiff has filed first affidavit dated 13.11.2009 stating therein that he does not want to file detailed affidavit in as much as the Commissioner has made due enquiry. However subsequently another detailed affidavit has been filed. As such the Court Commissioner referred the matter to the learned trial Court for seeking clarification as to which affidavit in lieu of examination in chief has to be accepted. Learned trial Court has passed the order impugned directing both the affidavits to be taken on record. Being aggrieved thereby present writ petition has been filed. 2. Mr.Rajure, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that under Order 18 Rule 4 there is no provision to permit two affidavits in lieu of examination in chief to be filed on record. He further submits that the impugned order acts to the prejudice of the present petitioner in as much as he gst 2 wp2744.11.sxw will not be in position to effectively cross examine the plaintiff. 3. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the petition. 4. Perusal of Order 18 Rule 4 would reveal that there is nothing which prevents a second affidavit in lieu of examination in chief to be placed on record. Since filing of affidavit in lieu of examination is a matter of procedure, unless there is specific bar which does not permit to do so, I do not find that the learned trial Court has committed any error in passing the impugned order. The reliance placed by learned trial Judge on a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rajesh Verma Vs. Aminex Holdings & Investments & Ors., 2008 (3) Mh.L.J. 460 is also well placed. ‘ 5. Apart from that I do not see any prejudice being caused to the present petitoiner. The stands in both the affidavits are not at all conflicting or inconsistent. In the first affidavit the plaintiff has only stated that he does not want to file detailed affidavit as his statement came to be recorded by the Court Commissioner. Whereas in the second affidavit he has given detailed statement. In any event, learned trial Judge has permitted the present petitioner to cross examine the plaintiff on both the affidavits. 6. In that view of the no case is made out for interference under Extra Ordinary Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition stands dismissed.