1 WP.6899/2010 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6899 OF 2010 Mr. Adi Jamshed Frenchman (Since deceased through legal heirs & rep.) & Ors. ...Petitioners. V/s. Sardar Dastur School Trust & Ors. ...Respondents. ----- Mr. Girish Godbole with Mrs. Prachi Raj Mhatre i/b M.S. Bodhanwala & Co., for the Petitioners. ------ CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATED : 6 th OCTOBER, 2010. P.C: 1] Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are the defendants in a suit for eviction filed by the respondents. The suit was filed in the year 1993 which was decreed in the year 1999 and an appeal preferred by the petitioners against the decree is pending. In the said appeal, the respondents/plaintiffs have been permitted to lead additional evidence and an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of one Mrs. Mehernavas Vakil has already been filed by the respondents. The Appellate Court permitted the Respondents to file a rejoinder to the amended written statement. 2 WP.6899/2010 2] An application under Rules 1 and 2 of the Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Code of 1908] was made by the petitioners on 28th June 2010 which has been rejected by the impugned Order. 3] The learned counsel for the petitioners criticized impugned order by pointing out that the learned District Judge was under an erroneous impression that the tests laid down for permitting additional evidence under Rule 27 of Order XLI of the said Code of 1908 will apply to the application under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XI of the Code of 1908. He pointed out that a detailed rejoinder has been permitted to be filed by the respondents and the object of the interrogatories was to reduce the evidence. He, therefore, submitted that the view taken by the District Judge is erroneous. 4] I have carefully given consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned District Judge has observed that the interrogatories are in the nature of questions which can be put to the witness of the respondents in cross examination. Perusal of the interrogatories shows that the observation of the learned Judge is fully justified. It is not possible to find any fault with the discretionary Order passed by the District Court in this writ 3 WP.6899/2010 petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5] The learned counsel for the petitioners expresses an apprehension that the petitioners may not be permitted to cross examine the witness of the respondents by asking the questions which form part of the interrogatories. The said apprehension is uncalled for as the learned District Judge has himself has noted that the interrogatories are in the nature of questions which can be put to the witness of the respondents in the cross examination. 6] Subject to what is observed as above, no case is made out for interference and the petition is rejected. JUDGE