wp5387.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.5387/2011 Ali Asghar Sheikhinayathusain and others -vs- M/s. Noble Printing Press and another ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri S.Ahmed, counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 22.12.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. By this petition, the petitioners impugn an order passed by the trial Court on 02/08/2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioners for permission to examine one Mrs.Kamlabai on commission. The petitioners are the tenants and wanted to examine Mrs. Kamlabai to prove the rent receipts allegedly issued by her in favour of the petitioners. It was the case of the petitioners that Mrs. Kamlabai was bedridden and could not attend the Court, hence, he applied for examining Mrs.Kamlabai on commission. The application was, however, rejected on 16/10/2010. The Court observed that Mrs.Kamlabai was attending the clinic for medical treatment and was taking treatment from an ayurvedic medical practitioner which showed that she was not so serious. After this application was rejected, the petitioners again applied for examining wp5387.11.odt 2/2 Mrs.Kamlabai on commission on the basis of Bailiff Report dated 26/02/2011. It was stated in the Bailiff Report that Mrs.Kamlabai was taken to hospital as she was not well. The ladies in the house of Mrs.Kamlabai, however, refused to state so in writing. The trial Court again rejected the application filed by the petitioners by the impugned order dated 02/08/2011. The Court observed that there was no medical certificate filed on record to show that Mrs.Kamlabai was bedridden and was unable to move. The Court thought that the second application should not have been moved when the first one was dismissed. The order cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. The order cannot be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction because another view of the matter may be possible. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE