1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3146 of 2009 (Prashant C. Gundawar and another v. The Municipal Council, Bhadrawati and another) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri A.S. Chandurkar, Advocate for Petitioners. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 31 st July, 2009 This petition is directed against the rejection by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhadrawati, of application Exhibit 188 and the order passed by the learned Trial Judge below Exhibit 187. The learned Trial Judge has rejected the petitioner’s request to produce certain documents after his evidence was over. No fault can be found with the orders passed and, therefore, they call for no interference. The petitioner would, of course, be at liberty to use the documents for the purpose of cross-examination. As for order below Exhibit 187, the learned Trial Judge has found that defendant 2 No.2 is deaf and he cannot read and write. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge directed that the questions should be put to defendant No.2 in cross-examination in writing and the answers given by the witness should be recorded in presence of the counsel for both the sides in open Court. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he would have to give the questionnaire to defendant No.2, who would then answer the questions in the questionnaire. That is not so. Since it is cross-examination, the questions will have to be put one after the other and the questions to be put need not be designed in advance. In view of this, the learned Trial Judge would undoubtedly understand the import of cross-examination and permit the petitioner to put the questions one after the other, depending on the answers given by the witness. Therefore, even this order does not need any interference with the above clarification. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. Judge. pdl