1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8392 OF 2009 Laxmikant Bhawanji Lapsiya, age: 76 years, Occ: Retired, R/o 241, Navi Peth, Jalgaon, Tal. and District Jalgaon. Petitioner Versus Vijay Hari Neve (deceased), through his legal representatives: 1 Smt.Pushpa w/o Vijay Neve, age: 63 years, Occ: Household, R/o 7, Sampanna Apartment, 69, Shivram Nagar, Near M.J. College, Jalgaon, Tal. & District Jalgaon. 2 Tushar Vijay Neve, age: 40 years, Occ: Service, R/o Sampanna Apartment, 69, Shivram Nagar, Near M.J. College, Jalgaon, Tal. & District Jalgaon. 3 Abhijit Vijay Neve, age: 37 years, Occ: Service, R/o C-5, Pakhad Co.Op. Hsg. Society, Near S.N.D.T. College, Erandwane, Pune. 4 Miss Anagha Vijay Neve, age: 30 years, Occ: Household, R/o 7, Sampanna Apartment, 69, Shivram Nagar, Near M.J.College, Jalgaon, Tal. & District Jalgaon. Respondents 2 Mr. S.A.Pradhan, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 21 st July, 2010. P.C.: 1 This writ petition challenges the order dated 05.03.2009, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon in Regular Civil Suit No. 358/1995. 2 The plaintiff had objected during the cross examination of witness produced by the plaintiff. The objection, that was raised by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, was as regards putting certain questions to the witness of the plaintiff by the learned Counsel for defendants in respect of documents at Exhibits-130, 23 and 24. The objection was that the said witness was called by the plaintiff to produce certain documents and if at all the defendants want to prove some other documents, they should independently call him as a witness, as, permitting the defendants to ask such questions to the witness of plaintiff would badly affect rights of the plaintiff. This objection has been rejected by the trial Court by an order dated 05.03.2009. 2 The plaintiff preferred Review Application at Exhibit-293 for review of the said order dated 05.03.2009. The Review Application has also been rejected by the trial Court, against which, present petition is preferred. 3 The evidence in the suit is going on. The witness of the plaintiff is being cross examined and during cross examination questions are put to 3 the witness. The trial Court has decided admissibility of such questions being put to the witness. In view of this, I do not find that at this stage any interference is called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 4 Hence, Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that if decision in the suit goes against the petitioner, it will be open for him to challenge the order impugned in this petition, by filing an appeal. (R. K. DESHPANDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp839209