IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 39 OF 2009 FR. MATHIAS B. D'MELLO THROUGH ATTORNEY PETER D'MELLO ... Petitioner Versus DEPUTY MANAGER (RECOVERY) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. P. Lotlikar,Advocate for the petitioner. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 13th March, 2009 P.C. Heard. This writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the Ad hoc District Judge in Special Civil Suit No.104/2005. The plaintiff has entered into witness box and after the plaintiff entered into witness box, the learned Judge directed the defendant Nos. 2 to 5, to cross-examine the plaintiff first and then the defendant No.1 was allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff. The defendant Nos. 2 to 5 feel aggrieved by the direction of the Trial Judge that the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 should cross-examine the plaintiff first and then, the defendant No.1 should cross-examine. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that there was no need to give such direction. After having heard the learned Counsel, it is apparent that the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 have common interest with that of the plaintiff in as much as even the defendants claim that the property should not be auctioned. The learned Judge of the Trial Court, has rightly observed in para 3 of the order that the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 cannot be said to be adverse party to the plaintiff and therefore, had rightly asked the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 to cross-examine the plaintiff first. The order of the Trial Court, does not suffer from any infirmity and impropriety. It has been passed in accordance with Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is no reason to interfere in the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. I, Therefore, do not find any substance in the writ petition. It is dismissed in limine. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. SMA