1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3165 OF 2010 (Gaurav P. Sahadeo & Anr. vs. Smt. Aarti V. Pandharipande) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. SEPTEMBER 14, 2010. Heard finally Shri Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Khapre, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the judgments in the case of P. Ramachandran Nair vs. Suparna Tapan Das, reported at AIR 2003 Bom. 457 and in Rangu vs. Rambha, reported at AIR 1967 Bom. 382. As the trial Court has not decided the issue in relation to relevance or admissibility of questions to be put to alleged scribe (Advocate), I do not wish to record any finding in this respect at this stage. The trial Court has simply permitted the respondent – defendant to put Will to advocate witness. If after such Will is put to him and any questions not supported by pleadings are asked, it is open to the present petitioners to raise appropriate objection in relation thereto and the trial Court is bound to decide such questions in accordance with law. Shri Khapre, learned counsel has invited attention to the arguments as noted in para 4 of 2 impugned order by trial Court about the application for amendment moved by the defendant. It is made clear that this Court earlier has not recorded anything in relation to that amendment application and left everything to the discretion of trial Court. The trial Court, therefore, is free to take appropriate course in accordance with its own wisdom. The said application shall be decided after hearing both sides and uninfluenced by observations made by it in the impugned order. In view of the clarification and observations above, I find that at present no prejudice is caused to the petitioners – plaintiffs. Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.