1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition no. 4535 of 2011 Abdul Hamid Pyaremiya Jahagirdar Vs. Municipal Council, Mangrulpir and another. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. B.N. Mohta, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. S.D. Chahande, Adv. for respondent no. 1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 4 th October, 2011. Heard. No fault can be found with the order passed by the trial court on 09.08.2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for permission to tender evidence. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the petitioner for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent no.1. The respondent no. 1 filed the written statement and denied the claim of the petitioner. The trial commenced and the petitioner as well as the respondent no.1 examined the witnesses and closed their evidence. After the evidence of both the parties was closed and the matter was listed for arguments, an application was moved by the petitioner for permission to tender his evidence on the ground that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had ruled that the Power of Attorney Holder cannot depose in regard to the facts which are in the personal knowledge of the party. The trial court, however, rejected the application. There is no perversity or jurisdictional error in the order 2 passed by the trial court. Apart from the fact that the application was filed by the petitioner belatedly at the stage of argument, the trial court also considered the fact that a similar application was filed by the petitioner at Exh.108 for permission to tender his evidence and the said application was rejected by the trial court on 24.2.2011. Since the order dated 24.02.2011 had attained finality, the petitioner could not have moved a similar application seeking permission to examine himself. The trial court was justified in rejecting the application as the petitioner had closed his evidence on 17.7.2009 and had moved the application after a lapse of 22 months and 20 days. The trial court observed that nothing precluded the petitioner from examining himself at an earlier point of time and in the facts of the case, the conduct of the petitioner did not entitle him to the relief. The order is just and proper and cannot be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The judgment reported in 2003 ALL M.R. Page 455 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.