1 wp2449.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2449 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2011 Trial Court has called for records of earlier civil suit for confronting witnesses by impugned order on 13.07.2009. Thereafter defendants sought witness summons for that purpose and that has been allowed on 21.10.2010. This order dated 21.10.2010 and 13.07.2009 are questioned in the present Petition. 2. Advocate Mr. Gaware contends that earlier for very same purposes, the application at Exhibit-31 was moved and trial Court then held that confrontation of witness by producing such record is not permissible. His argument is, therefore contrary view taken in the impugned order, is unsustainable. 2 wp2449.11 3. I find that the earlier suit was between parties and the defendants wanted records of suit to be called for confrontation. The evidence of measurer in that suit i.e. R.C.S. No. 58/2005 and proved document there i.e. Ex. 103 (map) were sought to be used in present suit. Trial Court has found that record/map relevant in present suit which is for removal of encroachment. No prejudice is caused to petitioner/plaintiff by this course of action. The evidence of plaintiff is going on. By impugned order at the most trial Court corrected the error what crept in while passing the earlier order. 4. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity. Petition is rejected. No costs (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp2449.11