1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.4150 OF 2009 Parasram Jana Doye, R/o. Tekepar (Madagi), Tahsil & Distt. Bhandara. .. PETITIONERS. // VERSUS // Smt. Gaurabai Ramhari Lakhade, R/o. Dawadipar (Bela), Post. Bela, Tahsil and District : Bhandara. .... RESPONDENT. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri S.V.Bhutada, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 29, 2009. 1. This petition is directed against order passed by Civil Judge Junior Division, Bhandara rejecting plaintiff’s application to stay the order passed by the learned Judge granting permission to the plaintiff to cross- examine the Commissioner appointed to measure the field in terms of orders passed by the District Judge in appeal. 2. The petitioner himself had applied for cross- 2 examination of that witness. This application was opposed by the respondent/ plaintiff. The learned Judge, however, allowed the application of the petitioner and allowed the petitioner to cross-examine the witness. Thereafter the plaintiff applied for cross- examination of the witness, which application was allowed by the learned Judge without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner raised objection stating that he would challenge the order before this Court and wanted the proceedings to be stayed. This application was rejected by the learned Judge by saddling costs of Rs.500/-. The petitioner challenged both the orders whereby the learned Judge permitted the plaintiff to cross-examine the witness and rejected prayer of the petitioner for stay to the proceedings, by saddling costs. 3. First, the witness to be examined was Court Commissioner and not plaintiff’s witness. Secondly, the petitioner had himself cross-examined the said witness. Therefore, there is no conceivable reason as to why the plaintiff too should not get opportunity to cross-examine the Court Commissioner. As far as saddling of costs, while rejecting the application for stay, the learned Judge should have been more 3 circumspect in the matter, but it is in the discretion of the Court. No interference is called for. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RR.