1 Wp no.1579/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1579 of 2010 Baby Mirasehab Mulani & Anr. ... Petitioners versus Mubaram Noorsaheb Inamdar & ors. ... Respondents ... Ms.Archana Kshirsagar for the petitioner. Mr.S.G.Deshmukh i/b Dinesh Kolekar for respondent nos.1, 3 to 9. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 19th July 2010 P.C. 1. Respondent no.2 is absent though served. Fresh service to the respondent no.2 is dispensed with. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Deshmukh waives service for respondent nos.1, 3 and 9. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 11 January 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division rejecting their application for issuance of a witness summons. 3. Petitioners are the original plaintiffs. He filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit properties which they claim to have inherited along with the other defendants from their father. 2 Wp no.1579/10 They sought to summon the Gram Sevak (village officer) for proving the records relating to the House Nos.956, 846, 805 and 806. The application was rejected by the trial Judge on the ground that the plaint mentions only the new numbers of the house and not the old numbers of the house. In my view, this was a hyper technical view for rejecting the application for issuance of witness summons. The trial Court ought not to have shut out the evidence at the very inception. If after the evidence the trial Judge comes to the conclusion that the old house numbers do not correspond to the new house numbers which are presently in existence, it is open to him to reject the evidence on the ground that the co-relation of the house numbers is not proved but that could be no ground for rejecting the application at the inception. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and application for issuance of writ summons is allowed. Rule is made absolute. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)