IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 537 OF 2010 MR. GANGADHAR NARSINGDAS AGRAWAL THROUGH P.O.A MR. DEVIDAS S. KUDCHADKAR ... Petitioner Versus THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., ... Respondent Mr. Vivek Rodrigues, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. E. Afonso, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 18th August, 2010 P.C.: This Writ Petition is filed by the plaintiff and is directed against order dated 8/07/2010 by which plaintiff's evidence has been closed. 2. On 6/10/2009, the plaintiff had filed an application to permit them to produce secondary evidence by way of photocopies as the defendant had not complied with the notice given by the plaintiff to produce the original documents. On 23/03/2010, the said application was allowed and the plaintiff, in terms of Section 65 of the Evidence Act, was allowed to produce photo/xerox copies of the documents listed in the notice. 3. On 8/07/2010, the plaintiff filed an additional affidavit listing the said documents and it is submitted that the plaintiff's witness even stepped in the witness box, but the advocate of the plaintiff remained busy elsewhere and another advocate of the plaintiff filed an application for adjournment stating that the plaintiff's advocate had gone to Sanguem Court for another case and would be late in attending the Court. The defendant objected to this application saying that it was another way of seeking an adjournment and the learned trial Court passed the impugned order observing that the application filed by the plaintiff was another way of seeking adjournment and proceeded to dismiss the same. 4. Shri Rodrigues, learned Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff submits that the learned trial Court did not at all take into consideration the application filed by the plaintiff on 6/10/2009, the order passed thereon on 23/03/2010 and including the fact that the plaintiff's witness had stepped in the witness box with additional affidavit producing photocopies of the documents allowed to be produced by order dated 23/03/2010. Learned Counsel submits that the plaintiff's evidence on that day could not proceed because the Counsel of the plaintiff who had proceeded to attend Sanguem Court could not reach back in time. Learned Counsel submits that there was a change of the Presiding Officer of the Court on 8/07/2010, who did not notice the previous orders and, therefore, the learned trial Court was not right in immediately closing the case of the plaintiff. 5. Considering the facts of the case, as enumerated herein above, the learned trial Court does not appear to have exercised its discretion correctly in a case where the plaintiff witness had stepped in the witness box with his additional affidavit in evidence with documents. The learned trial Court could have received the said additional affidavit and called upon the defendant to cross examine the witness. 6. Considering the facts of the case, therefore, the impugned order dated 8/07/2010 is hereby set aside. Writ Petition is allowed. The plaintiff is at liberty to tender the said additional affidavit in evidence. Parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 31/08/2010 at 10.00 a.m. for further proceedings. Expedite authenticated copy. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH