1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.8238 OF 2009 ... Dnyanoba s/o Trimbak Bukke and another Petitioners. V E R S U S Sulochanabai w/o Manohar Kadwade and others. Respondents. Shri P.G. Rodge, Advocate for the petitioners. Respondents No.1 to 4 served. CORAM : S. B. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 18TH JANUARY, 2010. PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Rodge for the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are original defendants No.1 and 2 in RCS No. 36/2003. Copy of the plaint is on record at annexure ‘A’ (page 10). It is explicit from the copy of plaint that there are three plaintiffs namely : 1) Mrs. Sulochanabai w/o Manohar Kadwade, 2) Mrs. Gangabai @ Parwatibai w/o Shivaji Mule and 3) Mrs. Shantabai w/o Shivraj Mallishe. In this suit, there are three defendants. Out of these three defendants, defendants No.1 and 2 have filed this writ petition. Plaintiffs in this suit have prayed for a decree of perpetual injunction against the defendants from interfering and/or obstructing plaintiffs possession over the suit land gat No.57 to the extent of 0 H 83 R and gat No.74 to the extent of 1 H 21 R situated at village Jagalpur (Bk), Tq. Jalkot. This suit had been filed by the plaintiffs on 4th February, 2003. 2 On behalf of original plaintiffs No.2 and 3, an application Exh.83 was filed in the trial court requesting the trial court to allow the application and permit them to lead their oral evidence. This application, after hearing parties, was allowed by the trial court by order passed on 04.11.2009. Costs of Rs.900/- was imposed on original plaintiffs No.2 and 3 with direction that plaintiffs No.2 and 3 shall deposit costs and remain present before the court on the adjourned date. 3. Mr. Rodge, learned counsel submits that, suit was filed by three plaintiffs jointly. He points out verification of all these three plaintiffs to the plaint. Copy of the plaint do show that it was signed and verified by all the three plaintiffs. Order passed by the learned judge, however, shows that evidence of original plaintiff No.1 was adduced and pursis of closure of evidence was filed. Thereafter present application Exh.83, filed on behalf of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 in the trial court was allowed. 4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner also points out pursis Exh. ‘B’ (page 17), which shows that same was filed on 11.09.2006. It has been signed by plaintiff No.1 Sulochanabai and advocate. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the plaintiffs were represented by one advocate. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this pursis Exh.”B” is binding on original plaintiffs No.2 and 3. Trial Court ought not have allowed the application. Trial court in its order has recorded adjournment of the matter at various point of time. Trial court, however, has observed that pursis is filed on behalf of plaintiff No.1. Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are different 3 persons and plaintiffs No.2 and 3 have not authorized plaintiff No.1 to lead evidence on their behalf. 5. In an exceptional circumstances under Order XLI Rule 28 of Code of Civil Procedure, evidence can be recorded by the First Appellate Court. Parties cannot be refused leading of evidence in the absence of valid reason. Filing of joint plaint or signing and verification jointly by three plaintiffs can be considered to be a circumstance, cannot be considered for leading to an inference that original plaintiffs 2 and 3 had authorized original plaintiff No.1 to file closure of evidence pursis. 6. In my view, order impugned does not require any interference. It is legal , proper and reasoned order. Suit is of 2003. This Court had earlier granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause ‘C’. Respondents though served absent. 7. Writ petition is devoid of substance stands dismissed since no case for interference is made out in extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution. No order as to costs. ( S. B. DESHMUKH ) JUDGE ..... aaa/8238.09