1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 295/2011 (Deepchand M. Baisware & another VERSUS Smt. Leela Rajaram Shukla) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.S. Sadavarte, counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 25 , 2011 . By this petitioner, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the trial Court on 28.09.2010 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for discarding the affidavit- evidence of the husband of the respondent-landlady. The respondent is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the respondent under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 against the petitioners for eviction. When the matter was at the stage of evidence, the plaintiff- respondent examined her husband Rajaram Shukla by filing an affidavit. As soon as the affidavit was filed by Shri Rajaram Shukla, the application was filed by the petitioners for discarding the affidavit evidence of Rajaram on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to enter into the witness box to face the cross-examination so as to bring the truth on record and, hence, the evidence of Rajaram was liable to be discarded. The respondent denied the prayer made by the petitioners in the application. The respondent categorically stated in the reply that if the plaintiff is not examined then 2 the suit of the plaintiff would be dismissed and the petitioners should not worry about that. The respondent, therefore, sought for the rejection of the application. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court, by an order dated 28.09.2010, rejected the application filed by the petitioner for discarding the affidavit- evidence of Rajaram. The Court observed that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to enter into the witness box in person to prove her case and the Court cannot direct or compel the plaintiff to enter into the witness box. The Court further observed in favour of the petitioners that in case, there is any defect in the evidence of the parties, the same would be considered at the time of final hearing. The order passed by the trial Court on 28.09.2010 is just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE