IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19048 of 2011 Farhat Nishat Versus Mehrun Nitsa & Ors ---------------------------------- 02. 03.11.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the Order dated 27.07.2011 in Misc. Case No.9 of 2009 by Munsif, Sheikhpur whereby the learned Court permitted the husband of the opposite party No.4 to be examined in place of opposite party No.4. The only objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he may be examined as witness on behalf of the opposite party No.2 to 4 but not in place of opposite party No.4. So far this submission is concerned, in my opinion has got no force because at this stage effect of statement of a witness cannot be examined. The same shall be considered at the time of final hearing. The party or the Court cannot dictate any party to examine a particular witness. It is for the party to choose the witness to whom he will examine as witness in the case. In view of the above settled law, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)