1 wp4192.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4192 OF 2011 Ravishri Virbhadra Kandula, Age: 37 years, Occ: Agri, Business, R/o. Sakuri, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar and another. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS Gopal Pandurang Bhange, Age: 57, Occ: Agri., R/o. Indiranagar, Sakuri, Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar and others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. S.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 6. Mr. U.B. Bilolikar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4,5, 9 and 10. Mr. Amol S. Gandhi, Advocate for respondent No.8. Mr. V.G. Shelke, AGP for respondent No. 7. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 20TH DECEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . This petition is filed challenging the order dated 14-03-2011 below Exhibit-102 in Special Civil Suit No. 120 of 2007 passed by the 2 wp4192.11 Civil Judge, Senior Division Kopargaon. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that, since the pursis at Exhibit-101 in Special Civil Suit No. 120 of 2007 was placed on record that the plaintiffs therein do not want to lead any further oral evidence and since only evidence is being led in Special Civil Suit No. 120/2007, affidavit filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 32 of 2008 should not have been taken on record by the trial Court. Learned Counsel would submit that, once the pursis was placed on record that the plaintiffs do not want to lead any further oral evidence, therefore, such affidavit should not have been accepted. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 32 of 2008 and the Counsel for the defendant in the said suit would jointly submit that, pursis which was placed on record was by the plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 120 of 2007. Therefore, 3 wp4192.11 the contention of the plaintiffs in that suit that they do not want to lead further oral evidence, cannot bind the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 32 of 2008. Parties in Special Civil Suit No. 32 of 2008 have independent right to place on record the affidavit and also other evidence though the suits are tried together. 4. Upon hearing the Counsel for the parties and in view of the fact that, the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 32 of 2008 did not place anything on record that he does not want to lead any oral evidence, he is entitled to file his affidavit and further lead evidence in the matter. Pursis filed by the plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 120 of 2007 would not bind the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 32 of 2008. No case is made out to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Writ Petition stands rejected. Interim relief stands vacated. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/DEC11