1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8712 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders. Shri Girish Godbole with Ms Priti Tare i/by M/s. Bilawala & Co. for the Petitioner. Smt. Snehal Modi for the Respondent. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22nd January 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff and the Respondents are the original Defendants. In a suit filed by the Petitioner, by order dated 13th January, 2009, the learned trial Judge rejected the prayer for adjournment made on behalf of the Respondent and closed the evidence of the Respondent. By the impugned order dated 5th September, 2009 passed below Application at Exhibit-44 made on behalf of the Respondent, the learned trial Judge has set aside the order dated 13th January, 2009 subject to payment of costs and it is directed that an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the first witness of the Respondent shall be filed on the next date. 2 2. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the Application at Exhibit – 44 made by one Shri Maniklal Singhee was not maintainable as his authority to make an application on behalf of the Respondent is not established. Various other contentions have been raised by the Petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that as the application itself was not maintainable, the impugned order is illegal. 3. I have considered the submissions. The effect of the impugned order is that the earlier order directing closure of evidence of the Respondent/Defendant has been set aside and the Respondent/Defendant has been permitted to lead evidence subject to payment of costs to the Petitioner. This is not a case where interference can be made in exercise of the powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent on instructions stated that an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the witness of the Respondent will be filed on or before 5th February, 2010. Statement is accepted. Though this Court is not interfering with the impugned order on the 3 ground that a substantial justice has been done, the issues raised by the Petitioner regarding the authority of Shri Maniklal Singhee are expressly kept open. 4. Subject to what is observed above, the Writ Petition is rejected. It is made clear that the Respondents will file an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of their witnesse on or before 5th February, 2010 and the trial Court will not grant any further time to the Respondent for that purpose. (A.S.OKA,J)