WP. 2494-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 2494 OF 2011 Sanjay Sheshrao Bhagat ... Petitioner Vs. Pouras Pramod Naik & Anr. ... Respondents *** Mr. Mandar Limaye, for the Petitioner. Mr. Anilkumar Patil, for Respondent No.2. *** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : AUGUST 10, 2011 PC: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the trial court has refused to permit him to lead evidence. It is submitted that the defendant could not remain present on 10th February, 2011 on account of his personal difficulty and an application to that effect was filed. However, that application was rejected by the trial court. He, therefore, filed application for setting aside the order. That application was also dismissed by the court. It is submitted that petitioner/original WP. 2494-11 - 2 - defendant remained present on three dates on which he was expected to lead evidence. However, the matter was adjourned on those three dates and on the fourth date, the trial court rejected his application for adjournment. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. He submitted that no order was passed by the trial court refusing to lead evidence. He submitted that trial court had only rejected the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order, refusing to grant adjournment and this order could not have been challenged by the petitioner. 2. In my view, from the record it does appears that the petitioner had remained present on three dates for the purpose of leading evidence further on the next date i.e. on 10-2-2011. On account of personal difficulty, he could not remain present and therefore, he had instructed his advocate to file an application for adjournment. In this case summons was served. Evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 6-10-2010. The defendant thereafter filed the list of documents on 13-10-2010. Then on 27-10-2010 affidavit in lieu of evidence was filed. Thereafter on three dates, he remained present for the purpose of permitting the respondent/plaintiff to cross-examine WP. 2494-11 - 3 - him and on the fourth date, the impugned order was passed. In my view, the trial court ought to have permitted the defendant to lead the evidence. The trial court has misconstrued the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner in effect was seeking permission to lead evidence. The impugned order, therefore, is set aside. The trial court is directed to permit the defendant to be cross-examined. The trial of the suit is, however, expedited. The civil writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. [ V. M. KANADE, J.]