1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2961 OF 2010 (Shailesh Rameshchandra Bhatia & Anr. vs. Shrikrushna Tukaram Dhote & 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. JULY 09, 2010. Heard Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners. The trial Court has rejected the prayer of the petitioners – defendants No. 2 & 3 to conduct cross examination of original plaintiff and defendant No. 1 observing that application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 is yet to be decided, and such course would constitute merit of the trial at that stage. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel, strongly argues that the collusion between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 is apparent. He has invited attention to voluntary appearance in the matter by defendant No. 1 before the scheduled date, his filing of written statement, practically admitting the stand in plaint and he further states that the plaintiff who claims to have purchased the property, is certified to be below poverty line. He has also indicated some other factors to urge that collusion between these two parties is only to defeat the rights and entitlement of present petitioners, who 2 after having paid huge consideration purchased the property and is in possession. He is placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Abbott Laoratories (I) Ltd. vs. J.D. Jamdar, reported at 1995 (2) Mh. L.J. 122 to show that such cross examination for limited purpose is legally permissible. Shri Choube, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 is opposing the request. I find that the material pressed into service before this Court can also be pressed into service before the trial Court to show alleged collusion and the trial Court has to find out party in actual possession. The collusion between the parties cannot be of any help when a finding in that respect is required to be reached. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on contentions of the petitioners recorded above. The trial Court shall apply its own mind independently and decide the application at Exh. 5 in accordance with law. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.