1 wp 9423.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9423 OF 2011 1. Ramesh S/o Baslingappa Ragho and another .. Petitioners Versus Godawari Babu Ragho .. Respondent Shri V. S. Tanwade, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri S. B. Gastgar, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 07TH DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . Heard Shri Tanwade, the learned counsel for petitioners and Shri Gastgar, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Shri Tanwade, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that the interrogatories were asked to elucidate the matter in issue. The answers to the interrogatories would clear much of the dispute. The learned counsel submits that the said application can be filed at any stage. According to the learned 2 wp 9423.11 counsel, the said interrogatories are relevant and material for effective adjudication of the dispute. It would also curtail the evidence. The plaintiff has to answer about the status under which she claims the said property. All these aspects have not been properly considered by the Court. 3. The matter is ripe for evidence. In fact, the matter is fixed for evidence. The Court has observed that it is not necessary to allow the said interrogatories. The present petitioners have right of cross examination to the plaintiff and the petitioners can ask the question. In the cross examination the said facts can be elucidated. The parties have to prove their respective case. As the matter is now ripe for evidence, it would not be appropriate to consider the application of the petitioner for interrogatories. The Court below has considered this aspect and has rejected the application. 4. In the light of the above, no case for interference is made out. As such, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11