1 wp-1131-11 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1131 of 2011 Ashok Shamrao Otari .. Petitioner Versus Mohan Shamrao Otari & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Umesh Mankapure for the Petitioner Mr. Vijay Killedar for Respondent No.1 CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 9th NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. : 1 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 22­10­2010, passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, by which order, the Application Exhibit­97 filed by the Respondents herein invoking Section 154 of the Evidence Act came to be allowed. The said application was in respect of the witness Mansinghrao Kuntekar P.W.­2 on behalf of the Respondents­Plaintiffs. The cause for filing an Application under Section 154 of the Evidence Act was in view of the contradictory statement made by P.W.­2 in the cross­examination by the Petitioners herein. The material part of the evidence is as regards the translation of Exhibit 86 which is the auction certificate. In the examination­in­chief, the 2 wp-1131-11 witness has stated that he is knowledgeable of Modi script and he has translated the auction certificate and certified copy of Exhibit­ 86, after perusing them and comparing them. However, in the cross­examination, he has stated that he has not seen Exhibit­86, which is contrary to what he has stated in the examination­in­chief. In so far as the application under Section 154 is concerned, it is well settled that the power of the Court to permit the party to cross­examine its own witness has to be exercised judiciously. 2 Considering the facts as narrated above, in my view, the Trial Court was right in allowing the said Application Exhibit­97 filed by the Respondents herein and permitted him to cross­examine his own witness. It was sought to be contended by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there is no contradiction in the statement made in the examination­ in­chief and cross­examination and in fact the said witness has stuck to his original stand, that he has seen a certified copy of Exhibit­86. 3 In my view, considering the record and on consideration of evidence which has been recorded, the said submission cannot be countenanced. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)