1 W.P.No.6505/11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6505 OF 2011. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ Mr.P.C.Patil, advocate for the petitioners. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 30.08.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The present petitioners are the original plaintiffs who had filed suit for specific performance of contract. The petitioners moved an application purportedly U/o 18 Rule 3-A of the C.P.C. for examining Talathi first before examining himself. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 3. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Court has rejected the application on technical ground. The Rules U/o 2 W.P.No.6505/11 18 Rule 3-A of the C.P.C. are procedural in nature. They have to be applied to sub-serve the cause of substantial justice. The learned counsel contends that in the application, the reasons are given. The record is necessary to be produced and the same can be proved by the Talathi. According to the learned counsel, it is within the jurisdiction of the trial Court to grant leave to the plaintiffs to examine the witness first. 4. The normal rule is that the party has to examine himself first before examining any other witnesses. No doubt, after obtaining leave of the Court the witness can be allowed to be examined prior to the party but the same has to be for cogent reasons. The trial Court has discussed that no such reasons are given for deviating from the procedure. 5. Mr.Patil, learned counsel submits that the documents are necessary to be produced on record, even for the plaintiff to adduce the evidence. The present application was for examining the Talathi as a witness prior to the plaintiffs and not for production of documents. 3 W.P.No.6505/11 As such the said arguments can not be considered. The plaintiffs are at liberty to give such application which the Court would consider on its own merits. 6. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.30.08.2011. asp/office/wp6505.11 4 W.P.No.6505/11