:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 6910 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 6910 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 6910 OF 2007 Guruling Vishwanath Hirapure ..Petitioner V/s Kashinath Janardhan Mahajan & Ors. ..Respondent Mr. R.G. Ketkar i/b R.S. Khadapkar for the petitioner CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE DATE DATE : 20TH FEBRUARY, 2008 : 20TH FEBRUARY, 2008 : 20TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition impugns the order dated 2-7-2007 passed by the 4th Jt.Civil Judge, Solapur rejecting the application of the petitioner/original plaintiff, seeking direction against the Respondents/original defendants to file pursis that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 will not lead evidence and unless the same is filed the evidence led by the Respondent No.3 cannot be accepted. 3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 should be examined first and it is only then that the :2: Respondent No.3 can be examined and in the event the Respondent No.3 is examined, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 should not be allowed to lead evidence and it would only amount to filling up the gaps which remained in evidence. The learned Counsel has invited my attention to Order 18 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure and he relied upon the case of Kumudini Kumudini Kumudini Damodar Damodar Damodar Magar V. Bhushan Damodar Magar Magar V. Bhushan Damodar Magar Magar V. Bhushan Damodar Magar, reported in AIR 2004 Bombay 397 passed by the Single Judge of this Court. 4. In my view, order 18 rule 3A does not refer to the evidence being given between the plaintiffs or defendants who are parties to the suit, but refers to the witnesses who are not parties to the suit and deals with the appearance of the party "before other witneses". Thus, Order 18 Rule 3A would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. So far as the judgment referred to by the learned Counsel, the same deals with examination of witness prior to leading evidence interse between the plaintiff and the defendant and same would not be of any assistance to the learned Counsel. That apart, I find that the impugned order refers to a clarification that the :3: Respondent No.3 has led evidence for and on behalf of himself and Respondent Nos.1 and 2. 5. In the circumstances, the petition is without substance and impugned order cannot be faulted. No case for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is made out. Writ petition is dismissed. ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)