IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 845 OF 2009 MR. WALBURG VERISSIMO COUTINHO ... Petitioner Versus COMMUNIDADE OF MARGAO REP. BY ATTORNEY ... Respondent Mr. S. M. Singbal, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. F. E. Noronha, Advocate for Respondent no.1. Mr. Deep Shirodkar, Advocate for Respondent no.3. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 22nd April, 2010 P.C. Shri Singbal appears on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. Leave to Advocate Usgaonkar to withdraw from the Petition. 3. Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the parties. 4. The Petitioner is plaintiff in Special Civil Suit no. 108/04/A. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner assails the Order dated 12.10.2009 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, in Special Civil Suit no. 108/2004/A, by which the Petitioner has been refused to file second additional affidavit i.e. third affidavit in evidence. The first affidavit in evidence was filed by the Petitioner way back on 07.11.2006. Thereafter, the Petitioner was allowed to produce additional documents and in support of the same, a second affidavit was filed. The Petitioner then again was granted leave on 06.03.2009 to produce four more documents. Counsel on behalf of Respondent no.1 submits that the Petitioner has by now produced 38 documents. The learned Trial Court has allowed the Petitioner to produce the said four documents in re-examination. That Order has not been challenged by any of the parties to the suit. The second additional affidavit was filed by the Petitioner with a view to explain the said four documents sought to be produced and leave to file the same has been refused by the learned Trial Court by the impugned Order. 5. The learned Trial Court has observed that the plaintiff has not pointed out to any provision of law by which the plaintiff could go on filing successive affidavits. Learned Counsel Shri Singbal submits that it is not the case of defendants that the third affidavit goes beyond the pleadings. In fact, that has been the case of the defendants. Be that as it may, considering that the Petitioner has availed of several opportunities to produce additional documents and leave was already granted to the Petitioner to produce four more documents, in my view, the impugned Order cannot be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction. Cross examination of the Petitioner has already been concluded by two Advocates appearing on behalf of two sets of defendants and cross examination by the Advocate for the third set of defendants is yet to begin. The suit is of the year 2004 and evidence began on 07.11.2006. I am, therefore, not inclined to entertain this Petition in supervisory jurisdiction as it cannot be said that any gross injustice has been caused to the Petitioner (See Surya Devi Rai's case, 2003 (6) S.C.C. 675). 6. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Parties to appear before the learned Trial Court on 30.04.2010 at 10.00 a.m. Needless to state, that the interim Order shall stand vacated. N. A. BRITTO, J. arp/*