1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1370 OF 2010 Dr.Deepak Santdas Jhangiani ...Petitioner Versus Mr.Vishnu Pandurang Chimbaikar & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.C.T.Kripalani for Petitioner. None for Respondents. ...... CORAM:- A.S.OKA, J. DATED:- FEBRUARY 25, 2010. P.C. 1. The Petitioner is the original 2nd Defendant. The cross-examination of the Petitioner was concluded. An application was made by the Petitioner at Exhibit 56 after the conclusion of the cross-examination. It appears from Page 27 of the Petition and from the synopsis that cross-examination of the Petitioner was concluded in March 2009. The Application at Exhibit 56 was filed by the Petitioner in August 2009. In the said application, it is stated that the Petitioner had filed an application at Exhibit 53 for issuing witness summons to the Municipal Corporation for production of original documents. The copies of the said documents were already produced by the 2 Petitioner which were marked as Exhibit `Y-3’ for identification. In the application, it is stated that by order dated 8th April 2009, the Petitioner was permitted to obtain certified copies of the documents and to produce the same before the Court. Accordingly, by the application at Exhibit 56 which was filed in August 2009, the Petitioners prayed grant of permission for production of certified copies of ten documents. The first prayer in the Application at Exhibit 56 was that the said documents be taken on record and exhibited in evidence. The said application made by the Petitioner was allowed by order dated 28th October 2009. The learned Trial Judge allowed production of the documents as prayed by the Petitioner and directed that the documents be taken on record and be exhibited as prayed by the Petitioner. The objection of the Petitioner is to the Clause 3 of the said order which permits the Plaintiffs to cross-examine the Petitioner. The said order was challenged by the Petitioner by filing a Revision Application before the Appeal Bench of the Court of Small Causes. The Revision Application has been dismissed. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that Plaintiffs have no right to cross-examine the Petitioner any further, as the cross-examination of the Petitioner has been closed long back. He 3 submitted that copies of the documents which were produced along with Exhibit 56 were already on record and the Plaintiffs have cross-examined the Petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that permission granted by the Trial Court to the Plaintiffs to cross-examine the Petitioner is erroneous. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The application at Exhibit 56 filed by the Petitioner itself discloses that though the copies of the documents were produced on record by the Petitioner, the same were not marked as Exhibits till the cross-examination of the Petitioner was concluded. The certified copies of the documents have been produced by the Petitioner after closure of his own cross-examination and thereafter, by order dated 28th October 2009, the said documents have been marked as Exhibits. It is, therefore, obvious that the Plaintiffs are entitled to further cross-examine the Petitioner on the documents which were produced subsequently and which were marked as Exhibits subsequently. Though Clause 3 of the operative part of the order does not restrict the cross-examination of the Petitioner, it is obvious that the Plaintiffs cannot be permitted to cross-examine the Petitioner on any aspect other than the documents which were allowed to be produced and exhibited under the said order dated 28th October 2009. It is obvious that the cross-examination of 4 the Petitioner in terms of the impugned order by the Plaintiffs will be restricted to the said documents, the production of which was allowed under order dated 28th October 2009. 4. Subject to clarification made above, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is dismissed. (A.S.OKA, J.)