1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 553 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 553 OF 2011 *** 1. Heard Advocate Shri Kudale for Petitioner. Contention is, issue, as framed, squarely requires petitioner/ plaintiff to demonstrate that defendant has closed the streamlet. For that purpose initially production of some records from the Court of Mamalatdar was sought. Its certified copy was already produced on record along with the plaint. The trial Court rejected that application. Thereafter, another application has been moved for calling witness viz. Shri Putthewad and Shri Videkar, Revenue Circule Inspector, Tahsil office to prove the contents of said file. Learned counsel states that merely because Court Commissioner has been examined, that is not sufficient to reject such application. He has placed reliance upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of "Shantibai K. 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 553 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Vardhan and others V/s Meera G. Patel and another" reported in 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 833 to urge that deletion of Order 18 Rule 17A by Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act, 1999 has not taken away the inherent power of the Court to issue such summons to witnesses if it finds it in the interest of justice. According to him, approach of trial Court is perverse as it defeats substantial justice. 2. The trial Court has rejected the application after noticing that earlier effort was made to summon a file which was not necessary. Thereafter, the Court was requested to call witness as mentioned above. The Court has not recorded reason that it has no power to issue such summons or no power in Civil Procedure Code to look into such request. The reliance upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court is, therefore, not relevant. 3. It is true that the procedural law 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 553 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. cannot be used to defeat substantive justice but then request made by petitioner was opposed by the Respondent/ defendant who pointed out that application was misleading and in fact it was an attempt to cure rejection of earlier application. In this jurisdiction, I am not inclined to interfere. With liberty to petitioner/ plaintiff to challenge that order, after the said is finally decided, present writ petition is dismissed. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:25/01/2011. ans/553