1 wp-9655.11.sxw lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9655 OF 2011 Shri Sunil Laxam Thanekar : Petitioner versus Shri Krushana Dhalu Navale & Anr. : Respondents Mr.Abhijit M Adagule for the Petitioner. CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 25th November 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition takes exception to the two orders. By the first order, the learned 9th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division Kolhapur allowed Application Exhibit 54 filed by the Defendant under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act for cross examination of his own witness viz. Jaysing Nawale, whereas by the 2nd order dated 19/9/2011 the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur rejected the Application Exhibit 55 filed by the Plaintiff for re-cross examination of the said witness Jaysing Nawale. 2 The trial Court has allowed Exhibit 54 on the ground that the Defendant’s witness Jaysing Nawale in his cross examination made some contradictory statements vis-a-vis the statements made in the affidavit of the Examination-in-Chief. Having regard to Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, the trial Court was of the view that the said course of action was permissible. 2 wp-9655.11.sxw 3 In so far as Exhibit 55 is concerned, the trial Court has observed that merely because the Defendant has allowed to cross examine his own witness by the order passed on Exhibit 54, the said Application Exhibit 55 for re-cross examination of the Defendant’s witness by the Plaintiff cannot be allowed as otherwise the said process will go on endlessly. 4 In my view, the reasons mentioned by the trial Court for allowing the Application Exhibit 54 and rejecting the Application Exhibit 55 are unexceptional in the context of the Indian Evidence Act. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The above Petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J]