KJ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI TESTAMENTARY & INTESTATE JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.74 OF 2010 IN TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.45 OF 2008 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.729 OF 2007 Mandakini Surendra Parelkar @ Paralkar & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Smt.Aruna Suryakant Paralkar @ Paralkar & Ors...Respondents ---- Ms.Smita Mhatre for the petitioners. Mr.Nilesh Londhe i/by Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for respondent nos.2 to 6. ---- CORAM : R.S.MOHITE, J DATE : 13/8/2010 P. C.: 1 This is a Chamber summons for substitution of Court Commissioner and for allowing plaintiff no.2 to re-examine the plaintiffs’ witness before the Commissioner. In so far as prayer for change of Court Commissioner’s report is concerned, I find that only allegation against the Court Commissioner is that he asked certain questions in marathi which was not the language known to the witness. Advocate for the respondent nos.2 to 6 states that KJ 2 witness knows English language. In the circumstances, further questions to this witness can be asked in English. In so far as prayer for re-examination is concerned, it is seen that the Advocate for plaintiff no.2 reserved her right to re-examine the witness. Re- examination is not being shut out. Therefore, it is clarified that Commissioner will permit re-examination but will restrict the re- examination to the scope as contained in the Evidence Act. It is further clarified that re-examination will be conducted in English. Time to submit Commissioner’s report is extended by 12 weeks. With these directions, Chamber summons stands disposed off. (R.S.MOHITE,J.)