gst 1 wp7274.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 7274 OF 2010 Triune Produce Brokers ... .... .... ..Petitioner. V/s Sushila Harihar Trivedi & Anr. .... .... ..Respondents. Mr.Bharat Joshi, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.J.P.Patel, Adv. For the respondents. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 22nd March, 2011 PC: The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.7.2010 vide which the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court has held that the evidence of plaintiff No.1 will have to be read as evidence. 2. The plaintiff after filing her affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and after being partly examined did not step into witness box. As such the plaintiff No.2 filed an application for examining her and closing the evidence of plaintiff No.1. In the said application filed by plaintiff No.2 aforesaid order came to be passed. Vide said order learned Judge has directed that the evidence of plaintiff No.1 be treated as closed and not to be read as evidence. Learned Judge has further directed plaintiff No.2 to lead her evidence. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that whatever examination in chief and cross examination of plaintiff No.1 has come on record should be permitted to be read in evidence. Learned counsel for respondent does not object to this. In that view of the matter, petition is partly allowed. Para 3 of the operative part of impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute partly with no order as to costs.