1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8528 OF 2010 Treasa Samuel ...Petitioner. v. Sidney F. Gomes & Ors. ...Respondents. Ms Treasa Samuel, petitioner in person present . Mr.I.C.Mecwan i/by R.K.Thakkar, advs. for the respondents. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 26th October, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard. The petitioner before this Court is the defendant no.3 in Special Civil Suit No.3584 of 1996 filed by the respondent. Present petitioner filed a list of 31 witnesses on 28th February, 2010. Then she filed application, Ex.231 and 232 seeking issuance of summons. That application was rejected. Petitioner thereafter filed Writ Petition No.7768 of 2010. When that petition came up for the hearing for admission, the petition was withdrawn. According to the petitioner, said petition was withdrawn by her advocate without her consent, therefore, she has filed this petition again on the same cause of action. Record does not reveal that previous writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition on the same cause of action. 2 Besides this, it appears that the evidence of plaintiff was completed in the year 2005 and, thereafter, the present petitioner has been prolonging the matter on one or the other ground. Her own cross-examination was completed on 1.9.2009. Thereafter, she has been seeking on filing applications for different purposes, including application for issuing summons to large number of witnesses. Applicant, who appears in person states that she may not examine all the 22 persons but she may examine 4 or 5 of them according to the availability. It shows that she is not clear about the number of witnesses whom she wants to examine. Therefore, it will be futile exercise on the part of Court to issue summons to all 22 witnesses. Out of 22 persons, who are sought to be summoned, two are sub-registrars in different departments and one is police inspector. It appears that application to issue summons to so many persons is simply frivolous and without any justification. I do not see any reason to interfere in the order rejecting that application. However, as the record reveals that petitioner has not filed any pursis so far closing her evidence, she may be given last chance to examine witnesses, whom she may produce without summons from the Court. 2 For the aforesaid reasons, petition stands dismissed. 3 However, if the petitioner/defendant no.3 so desires, she may keep her witnesses present without summons from the Court. Parties inform that the suit is fixed before the trial Court tomorrow. The trial Court may give one date to the petitioner to keep her witnesses present and on that day as far as possible, the witnesses may be examined without giving further adjournment for that purpose to the parties. 3 Petition stands disposed off accordingly. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of the order. (J.H.BHATIA, J.) 4