1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1528/2008 (Mahavirprasad Sharma thro. his L.R.'s Smt.Rammurtidevi wd/o Mahavirprasad Sharma & another VERSUS Gopaldas Gopikisan Mohta) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. K.P. Kanungo, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Jetha, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 16, 2008. Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the IInd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur dated 25.03.2008, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for permission to examine an additional witness was rejected. I have perused the order dated 25.03.2008. It appears from the impugned order that the defendant was given sufficient opportunity to lead evidence. The plaintiff had already led evidence and closed his case. The defendant had also led his evidence and closed his case. The suit was fixed for arguments when the application was filed by the petitioner for permission to examine an additional witness. The sole reason stated in the application for 2 permission to examine an additional witness was that the defendant had changed his lawyer on the date of filing of the application for permission to examine an additional witness and a new advocate had filed his vakalatnama on the very same day. It is further stated in the application that the newly engaged advocate advised the petitioner that it was essential to examine an additional witness in the suit or else the defence of the petitioner would be highly prejudiced. It is further stated in the application that though the earlier advocate had submitted a pursis on the last date for closing the case, the defendant was likely to suffer grave and irreparable loss in view of that and permission may be granted to the petitioner to examine an additional witness. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 25.03.2008, it is clear that the order does not suffer from any error whatsoever, much less a jurisdictional error, so as to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is conspicuous to note that the reason stated in the application for permission to examine the witness is not an acceptable reason which would entitle the petitioner to seek permission to examine an additional witness. Moreover, the application clearly shows that a 3 new counsel was engaged on the very day i.e. 13.03.2008 and the application was filed for examining an additional witness soon after he filed the vakalatnama. It is further conspicuous to note that it is not stated in the application as to why the witness was to be examined and for what reason. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said, on the mere statement of the petitioner in the application, that it was necessary for the defendant to examine an additional witness. The Court further considered that both the parties had already tendered the evidence and the matter was listed before the Court for arguments. Since sufficient and justifiable grounds and reasons were not stated by the petitioner in the application for permission to examine the additional witness, the Court was justified in rejecting the application by the order dated 25.03.2008. The judgments reported in 2005(6) SCC 344, specially the paragraph 32 thereof and the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC 1400 are inapplicable to the facts of this case. Paragraph 32 of the judgment reported in 2005(6) SCC 344 merely deals with the general principles pertaining to the provisions of Order 18 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Similarly, in the case reported in AIR 1981 SC 1400, the counsel for 4 the petitioner had not presented himself before the Court when the matter was dismissed and also had remained absent when the application for setting aside the order of dismissal was taken up by the Court for hearing. In the aforesaid peculiar facts, the Supreme Court observed that a party should not be made to suffer for the misdemeanour or inaction of the counsel. Such is not the case here. The matters and disputes cannot be reopened merely because of the change of counsel without there being any justifiable reason for opening the same. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE