1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9259 OF 2009 Ramchand Chandiram........ Petitioner versus Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & anr........Respondents. Mr. S.P. Kanuga adv. for the Petitioner Mr. M.M. Malvankar Adv. for the Respondents. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 10th November, 2009. P. C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. The present petitioner is original plaintiff who has challenged the notice issued by the respondent Corporation under section 351 of B.M.C. Act. During the trial the petitioner/plaintiff has examined himself. The plaintiff has specified the names of the witnesses below Exh.25 and with a view to examine the said witnesses, the plaintiff had moved the trial court for issuance of witness summons. The same was granted by the trial court on 22-9-2009. On the next date the plaintiff again moved similar application at Exh.26 again requesting the court to issue witness summons to the witnesses named. The trial court rejected the 2 same solely on the ground that by then the plaintiff has failed to serve the witness summons though granted at Exh. 25. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the list of witnesses has been already tendered in the court on 22-9-2009 and only thereafter Exh.25 was allowed. The only ground on which the application has been rejected is that the plaintiff is trying to delay the decision of the suit. The plaintiff’s cross examination seems to be over in September. There is hardly any time lost in moving the application for issuing witness summons. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the plaintiff will be put to suffer irreparable loss and would be put to grave injustice if an opportunity to examine the witnesses is denied to the petitioner. Whereas no prejudice would be caused to the Corporation if the present petition is allowed and witness summons is issued to the witnesses whose names are already named in the list by the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the respondent leave it to the court to pass appropriate order in the present case. In my view ends of justice would be met by allowing the present petition. Hence I pass the following order. 3. The impugned order dated 6-10-2008 is quashed and set aside. The application moved by the plaintiff for issuance of witness summons is allowed. The trial court to proceed with the suit after summoning the witnesses. Rule made absolute in the above terms. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)