1 WP 6136/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6136 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Bharat Joshi for the petitioner. Mr. Jayen R. Trivedi for the respondents. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 9TH AUGUST 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 20 November 2009 rejecting all applications of the petitioner for issuance of witness summonses to all witnesses except one. 3. The respondents are the original plaintiffs who have filed a suit for possession of a rented premises against the petitioner, inter alia, on 2 WP 6136/10 the ground of bonafide requirement. The petitioner made an application for issuance of witness summons to 5 witnesses (former tenants or their transferees) on the ground that during the pendency of the suit, the respondents had transferred the tenancies/rent receipts in respect of other premises in the suit building and, therefore, the respondents’ claim for the bonafide requirement was not sustainable. The trial court allowed the issuance of witness summons in respect of one witness who was in occupation of room no.83 and rejected the applications in respect of tenants of room nos.55, 96, 4 and 5. That order is impugned in this petition. 4. The trial court has held that the fact about the transfer of tenancies in respect of room nos.55, 96, 4 and 5 was not in dispute and the respondents had produced on record the agreements relating to transfer of those tenancies. Counsel for the respondents invited 3 WP 6136/10 my attention to the two affidavits of the plaintiff, copies of which are at page nos.57 to 68 of the petition. Perusal of the affidavits clearly discloses that the respondents have admitted transfer of 4 tenancies and have produced copies of the agreements of transfer of tenancies in respect of the 4 rooms. Consequently, the learned trial Judge committed no error in rejecting the applications for issuance of witness summons to the occupiers of the 4 rooms. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the photocopies of the agreement of transfer of tenancies were produced after the cross examination of the plaintiff was over and, therefore, the respondents did not have an opportunity of cross examining the plaintiff thereon and, therefore, the witness summons was necessary. In my view, the grievance has no merit. The petitioner have not applied to the Court for 4 WP 6136/10 recalling of the plaintiff for further cross examination. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)