1 wp-10825-11.sxw mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10825 OF 2011 Shri Jalal Ahmen Shaikh ..Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. Shamim i/b Shamim & Co. for the Petitioner Mr. M.M.Malvankar for the Respondent No.1 CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 19th December, 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition takes exception to the Order dated 2-11-2011 passed by the Learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court, Bombay, by which Order, the application Exhibit 15 for issuance of witness summons, came to be rejected. 2 The facts as can be seen from the impugned Order disclose that the Petitioner/Plaintiff has submitted a list of witnesses on 20-10-2010 and on 26-7-2011, a statement was made on behalf of the Plaintiff that he wants to examine all the witnesses mentioned at Sr.No.6 to 12 in the said list. The said witnesses are the officers of the BMC, BEST and MTNL. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time i.e. on 7-9-2011 and 12-10-2011, when the matter was adjourned as a last chance. Inspite of the opportunity given, it appears that no positive steps were taken by the Plaintiff to call the said witnesses despite the specific directions given by the Learned Judges of the Bombay City Civil 2 wp-10825-11.sxw Court, which has been mentioned in the Roznama dated 28-10-2011 and 26-7-2011. Thereafter, when the matter was adjourned to 2-11-2011, the instant application Exhibit 15 came to be filed for issuance of witness summons to the said 6 persons. 3 In the back drop of the events narrated above, the said Application came to be rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the Application has been made to delay the trial of the suit which is pending since the year 1999. However, by the impugned Order a further direction has been issued that the right of the Plaintiff to adduced remaining evidence is forfeited. In my view, the further directions are a bit harsh and ought not to have been issued by the Trial court, by imposing some conditions on the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff ought to have been allowed to lead further evidence. The said part of the order is therefore, set aside, resultantly the Petitioner/Plaintiff would be entitled to file an application to lead further evidence which may be in the nature of the secondary evidence of the documents in question. If such an application is filed, needless to state that the same will be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. 3 With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ( R. M. SAVANT, J. )