1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.976 OF 2009 1. Gangadhar S/o.Shankarrao Kakde, Age-56 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Plot No.42, N-3, Cidco, Aurangabad 2. Sow.Rukhminibai W/o.Gangadhar Kakde, Age-46 years, Occu-Household, R/o. As above 3. Venktesh S/o.Gangadhar Kakde, Age-29 years, Occu-Business, R/o. As above. PETITIONERS VERSUS Municipal Corporation Aurangabad, Through the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. RESPONDENT Mr.S.S.Ladda, advocate for petitioners Mrs.Manjusha Deshpande, advocate for sole respondent (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 18/06/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By the present writ petition under Article 226, 227 of The Constitution of India, the petitioners/original plaintiffs have challenged the order passed by the 4th Jt.Civil Judge, S.D. 2 Aurangabad in R.C.S.No.883/2007 on his file. 2. Rule. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 4. The facts which gave rise to file the present writ petition can be summarized that the petitioners herein have filed the suit against defendant respondent bearing RCS No.883/2007 for declaration that the notice dated 14/09/2007 issued by the Administrative Officer of the defendant be declared as null and void and by way of consequential relief of perpetual injunction. It appears that the suit is contested by the respondent defendant by filing written statement. When the suit was listed for final hearing, after framing of issues it appears that an application was moved vide Exh.53 for issuance of summons to the witnesses after permitting to deposit the necessary process fee. This application for issuance of summons to the witnesses was rejected by the Learned Lower Court vide his order under challenge. 5. Considering the submissions across the bar, the fact is clear that the parties to the litigation are always to allow to lead their evidence and to assist them to procure the presence of the witnesses by issuing the necessary witness summons on payment of requisite witness bhatta and witness process. The learned Court has allowed 3 to examine the witnesses but declined to issue the process of summons to be served upon them to procure their presence. The reasons quoted in the order under challenge for the rejection of such application are not the reasons which are permissible in the eye of Law. Thus the order under challenge and the reasons for which it is rejected by the Trial Court, they are not coming under the ambit of provisions of Law, hence require to be quashed and set aside. In the premise, the order passed by the learned Lower Court dated 19/11/2008 below Exh.53 is hereby quashed and set aside. The application filed at Exh.53 by the petitioners plaintiffs is hereby allowed. 6. Rule thus made absolute as indicated above, and the writ petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/wp976-09