(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2033 OF 2011 Govind s/o. Ramchandra Tirmale (Chunchune), Age : 67 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Bansawargaon, Taluka : Chakur, District : Latur, .. Petitioners and 5 others. (Original defendants) versus Laxman s/o. Govindrao Tirmale (Chunchune), Age : 33 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Bansawargaon, Taluka : Chakur, at present R/o. Kalkoti, Taluka : Chakur, District : Latur, .. Respondents. and another. ....................... Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate, for the petitioners. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 23RD MARCH 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. Gunale, for the petitioners / original defendants. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 9-2-2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chakur, below Exhibit 57 in Regular Civil Suit No. 18/2007. 3. After both sides closed their evidence, respondent / plaintiff sought leave to summon school authorities to prove an extract of admission register certified by school authorities. The said extract is dated 5-12-2008 and in favour of present respondent no.2. The application was opposed by the present petitioners and after hearing respective Counsel, trial court has allowed that application. It has noted that the fact of school leaving certificate was within knowledge of plaintiff and then, it has found that there was no intention on the part of plaintiff to delay the matter. It has been found that it would be proper to call for witnesses for proper disposal of suit. 4. Adv. Mr. Gunale has relied upon judgment of learned Single Judge of Madras High Court reported at AIR 2006 Madras 227, in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. M/s. Rama (3) Granites, and the Judgment of Hon. Apex Court reported at AIR 2005 SC 3353, in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. Vs. Union of India. Before Hon. Madras High Court, the suit was by a nationalized bank for recovery of amount and execution of documents in favour of plaintiff was denied by the defendant. After the matter was closed for final arguments, plaintiff / Bank sought to examine its Manager in whose favour the defendant executed the alleged document. That request was rejected by the trial court and that has been found proper by the High Court. 5. Here, after considering relevant material, trial court has found evidence necessary for fair trial. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere at this stage. 6. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2033