1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7468 OF 2009 Nagorao s/o. Chandabhan Solunke and another .. petitioners Versus Kundlik s/o. Eknath Pawar through LRs. .. Respondent. --- Mr. K.F. Shingare, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 13th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 16th September, 2009 vide which the application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for issuing witness summons to Shri Bhagvanrao Niturkar and Tukaram Pawar came to be allowed. 2] Shri Shingare, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the provision of Rule 17-A of order 18 has been omitted, it is not 2 permissible to issue summons to the plaintiff’s witnesses after the evidence closure pursis. 3] The learned trial court has found that it is necessary in the interest of justice to allow the application and examine the witnesses. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been in a position to point out any provision in CPC which prohibits witnesses to be summoned after the evidence closure pursis is filed. In that view of the matter, I find that the learned trial court could have passed the order impugned in the present petition, taking recourse to the provision of Section 151 of the C.P.C. 7] In that view of the matter, no perversity could be found with the approach adopted so as to warrant interference. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-