1 WP No.6299/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.6299 of 2010 Yadav Kamal Patil ... Petitioner versus Shankar Kamal Patil & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. Yogesh Dandekar for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 12th August 2010 P.C. 1. No interference is called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the reasons mentioned below: i) The order is an interlocutory order. ii) By the application on which the impugned order is passed, the petitioner – original defendant no.1 asked not only for permission to cross examine the plaintiff further but also asked for an adjournment on the ground that the petitioner’s advocate had gone out of station. 2 WP No.6299/10 2. Under Order 17 Rule 1(2)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure absence of a pleader is not a ground for adjournment. Clause (e) of Order 17 Rule 1(2) provides that where the witness is present in the Court but a party or his pleader is not present or is not ready to examine or cross examine the witness, the Court may pass such order as it thinks fit dispensing with the examination in chief or cross examination of the witness. In the circumstances, the trial court committed no error in rejecting the application which contained dual prayers for permission to further examine the respondent plaintiff and to grant adjournment for the purpose of cross examination on the ground that the pleader of the defendant was not present. Writ Petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)