1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9349 OF 2010 M/s Sushilkumar Vasantlal and Company Petitioner Versus Zumbarlal s/o Gheverchand Bothra and others Respondents Mr. S.S.Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.P.Deshmukh, advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 13 th October, 2010. P.C.: 1 An application tendered by defendants at Exhibit-305 on 28.07.2010, requesting the Court to issue witness summons to additional three witnesses, is turned down by the trial Court in view of the order passed on 01.09.2010. 2 Normally, the Courts do not refrain from permitting examining additional witnesses. However, in the instant matter, the trial Court has refused to consider the request and in my opinion, quite justifiably. Suit is presented in the year 2000 by the plaintiff claiming recovery of possession of tenanted premises from 2 defendants on the ground of default, bona fide requirement and on account of subletting the premises. Recording of evidence commenced in 2008 and plaintiff has completed his evidence and defendants have also in fact completed leading of evidence. At an earlier stage, when list of seven witnesses was submitted by defendants and request was made for permitting them to examine the witnesses by tendering application at Exhibit-239, the trial Court, with a view to meet ends of justice, permitted examination of additional witnesses, although names of witnesses were not supplied in the list tendered by concerned defendants. After examination of additional witnesses, defendants found that there are certain lacunae appearing in the evidence and, therefore, tendered an application for examination of more witnesses. The trial Court refused to entertain the request on the ground that defendants were granted indulgence and were permitted to examine additional witnesses though their names did not appear in the list supplied by them. It is also relevant to consider that the suit is filed in the year 2000 and for one reason or the other, the matter is being prolonged. 3 It is contended by Respondent No.1 – original plaintiff that contentions raised in the application at Exhibit-305 and the reasons stated for examination of additional witnesses do not have any foundation in the written statement tendered by defendants. 4 However, I do not deem it appropriate to cause 3 interference in the matter at interlocutory stage of the proceedings. In exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, no interference is called for. Petition is devoid of substance. 5 Writ Petition, therefore, stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp934910