1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4419 OF 2007 Shivprakash Hukumchand Pirthani ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- Jaikumar Babulal Chudiwal and others ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. R.R. Mantri, advocate for petitioner. Mr. G.K. Naik Thigle, advocate for respondent no.3. ..... CORAM : R.M.BORDE,J DATE : 30th August, 2010 PER COURT : 1. In Special Civil Suit No.211/1998, plaintiff- petitioner presented an application requesting the Court to issue summons to defendant no.2 for the purpose of his examination. It is contended in application that the defendant no.2 has not led evidence in the matter, however, some affidavits sworn by defendant no.2 is placed on record. Defendant no.1 has filed written statement and defendant no.2 has filed pursish adopting the said written statement filed by defendant no.1. In order to test the veracity of the statements made in affidavit presented by defendant no.2, it is necessary to examine him. 2. Application tendered by the plaintiff has been turned down by the Court, by observing that since defendant no.1 has examined himself in the Court, 2 defendant no.2 need not be compelled to adduce his evidence, and as such, application tendered by the plaintiff need not be considered. 3. Admittedly, defendant no.2 has not presented affidavit in the nature of her examination in chief. Defendant no.2 can not be compelled to depose before the Court at the instance of plaintiff. So far as the probative value of the affidavit presented by defendant no.2 is concerned, the issue can be examined at appropriate stage in view of facts and circumstances of the case by the trial Court. Considering the interlocutory nature of proceedings challenged in the Petition, no interference is called for in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Petition is devoid of substance, hence stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE gas/wp4419.07