*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9617/2009 Manoj Puri, Director and another. ..Petitioners -VERSUS- Mahesh Developers and others. ..Respondents ............... Mr.V.A.Thorat, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.B.Nanagare, for the Petitioners. Mr.S.U.Kamdar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ram Singh, Advocate for the Respondents. ............... CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. Dated 07th December, 2009. PC:- 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2 The Petitioners are the Defendants in a suit instituted by the Respondents for injunction. The Respondents’ evidence is over and thereafter, the evidence of Petitioners/ Defendants has commenced and already four witnesses are examined. The Petitioners were desirous to examine the witness by name Mr.D.K.Desai. According to the Petitioners, the said witness is very important witness who can throw light on the issue involved in the suit. The said witness could not be examined earlier as he was hospitalized and thereafter, was advised rest. By an order dated 06.10.2009, the Trial Court though granted an adjournment for *2* examination of one Mr.T.A. Pawar as a witness for the Petitioners, however, rejected request to the extent it relates to witness Mr.D.K.Desai. The Court not being satisfied about reasons assigned for absence of witness Mr.Desai, a prayer for examination of Mr.Desai on the next date was rejected. This order is one of the orders under challenge in the present Writ Petition. On the next date, the Petitioners moved an application with a view to seek review of the said order by placing medical certificate on record which certified the date of admission in hospital, the date of discharge and treatment prescribed. Lastly it is stated in the certificate that patient is advised rest for a month. The Court below doubted the correctness of medical certificate as well by observing that the sentence which prescribes one month’s rest seems to be a interpolation. 3 Without going into the controversy in greater details, in my view, ends of justice would be served if the Petitioners are granted an opportunity to examine the witness Mr.D.K.Desai. 4 The learned counsel for the Respondents has opposed the petition and submitted that in the event if the petition is to be allowed, the same should be subject to imposition of costs and the Petitioners be put to term so that witness can be examined without fail on the next date before the Trial Court, same being 17th December, 2009. 5 Being of the view that it would be in furtherance of the cause of justice to permit the Petitioners to examine the witness Mr.D.K.Desai, I allow the petition by quashing and setting aside the relevant part of the orders dated 06.10.2009 and 29.10.2009 which *3* refuses permission to the Petitioners to examine the witness Mr.D.K.Desai. 6 The learned counsel for the Petitioners assures this Court that the Petitioners would keep the witness Mr.Desai present on 17th December, 2009 before the Trial Court and see to it that his evidence is recorded and concluded on that day itself. 7 The statement is accepted. 8 In the result, Writ Petition is allowed. The Petitioners are permitted to examine Mr.D.K.Desai as their witness. The Petitioners shall keep the witness present on 17th December, 2009 for recording of his evidence without fail. In no event further opportunity will be granted. This order is subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to be paid by the Petitioners to the Respondents on or before 17th December, 2009. Rule made absolute in the above terms. 9 Writ Petition is disposed of. (A.P. Deshpande, J)