1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.7224 OF 2007 PETITION NO.7224 OF 2007 PETITION NO.7224 OF 2007 Shri Jagdish @ Appa Indise and others : Petitioners versus Shri Ramesh Keshavlal Ajmera : Respondent Mr.Narendra V Bandiwadekar for the petitioners. CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED DATED DATED : MARCH 07, 2008. : MARCH 07, 2008. : MARCH 07, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This writ petition is directed against the Interim order. However, the grievance of the petitioners is that the original plaintiffs had during the course of the proceedings filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. 2 That affidavit was taken on record and a copy was served on the petitioners - original defendants. Thereafter, an additional affidavit by way of examination-in-chief was filed by the very witness and the learned judge has, without giving any opportunity to the petitioners to object the same being taken on file, passed the impugned order. 2. Mr.Bandiwadekar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that after the Code of Civil Procedure is amended and which amendment has come into force from 1st July 2002, there is no provision for filing any additional affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. That affidavit is in lieu of examination-in-chief and, therefore, the very witness can not file any supplementary or additional affidavit or else the provisions which are now incorporated would be completely frustrated and deletion of Order XVIII Rule 17(A) has also not been noticed by the learned Judge. 3. The grievance of Mr.Bandiwadekar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, 3 is that the additional affidavit is served on 23rd August 2007 and that is why a request was made for time to raise objection. The learned Judge is in error in taking the affidavit on file without giving any opportunity to the petitioners. 4. From the perusal of pages 63 and 69 of this writ petition it is apparent that the learned Judge has noted the request of the petitioners for time to file Say and objection. Yet, further affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief has been taken on record. 5. The learned Judge should have granted an opportunity to the petitioners to raise appropriate pleas for opposing the said affidavit being taken on file. That having not been done, the impugned orders dated 23rd August 2008 below Exhibits 92 and 95 are quashed and set aside. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to file their objections with regard to the additional affidavit of the plaintiffs being taken on file and read in evidence. It is only after such objections are raised and are allowed to be raised and if raised, considered 4 that the learned Judge would pass appropriate orders on the request of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Bandiwadekar states that written objections would be filed within a period of two weeks from today. If the same are filed, then the learned Judge to consider them and after hearing the parties, pass further orders in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs. [S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J] [S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J] [S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J]