1 Ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2099 OF 2010 Laxhman Bandu Bhosle & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. Hari Daji Harugade & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Anilkumar Patil for the petitioners None for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 22, 2010 P.C. 1 On the oral prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, petition is restored. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Petitioners are the third parties to a suit filed by the first respondent. An execution application for executing the decree passed in the suit filed by the first respondent is pending. In the said execution application, an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of one Rajendra Ramchandra Harugade claiming to be a Constituted Attorney of the first respondent was filed. The petitioners made an application at Exhibit-74 raising an objection to the said affidavit contending that the Constituted Attorney was not entitled to depose on behalf of the first respondent. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 3 While rejecting the application, the learned trial Judge has observed that a Constituted Attorney can always depose in respect of the facts which are within his knowledge. The petitioners have already cross examined the said witness. At the time of final arguments, the petitioners can always raise a contention that a part of 2 the affidavit which is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness should not be considered. The petitioners can always raise appropriate objections at the time of final arguments. The evidentiary value of the evidence in the form of such affidavit will have to be considered by the trial Court at the time of final hearing. 4 Subject to what is observed above, no interference is called for. Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE