1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 783/2009 Tulsabai Shewale and another vs. Shaila C. Khobragade and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- CORAM : S.R.DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 20 th FEBRUARY, 2009 Heard Shri Mourya, Advocate, for the petitioners. The petitioners are defendant Nos. 1 & 2 in Special Civil Suit No. 1062/2007, pending before the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. The respondent no.1/plaintiff was being examined in the Court. After her examination in chief, she was cross examined by the petitioners i.e. defendant nos. 1 & 2. Then question of cross examination by defendant nos. 3 & 4 i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in the petition arose. The petitioners then applied for not allowing the defendants 3 & 4 to cross examine the plaintiff. That prayer was rejected. It was observed that, “if the defendants no. 1 and 2 are apprehending that the 2 admissions in their cross examination of the plaintiff will be washed out because of cross- examination by defendants No. 3 and 4, then defendants No. 1 and 2 must have been applied for the permission to cross examine plaintiff after the cross examination by defendant Nos. 3 and 4. Defendants No. 1 and 2 have failed to do the same. Even though defendants No. 3 and 4 are in collusion with the plaintiff they are having every right to cross examine the plaintiff. The right of defendants No. 3 and 4 cannot be curtailed as prayed by defendants No. 1 and 2. In the result, application is rejected”. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the defendants No. 3 and 4 are allowed to cross examine the plaintiff, they would give such admission which may erase the effect of the admissions made by the plaintiff during the cross examination by defendants No. 1 and 2, who are the main contesting defendants (petitioners) The apprehension appears to be not well founded inasmuch as, if the plaintiff admits certain things which are contrary to the 3 statements made in the cross examination of defendants No. 1 and 2, they would be certainly entitled to cross examine plaintiff after the cross examination by Defendants No. 3 and 4. It is seen that defendants No. 3 and 4 are supporting the plaintiff. In such case, the admissions given by the plaintiff in the cross examination by defendants No. 3 and 4 can certainly be clarified by cross examination by Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 after cross examination by Defendants No. 3 and 4. In this view of the matter, this apprehension can be substantiated only if their application for cross examination after the cross examination by Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 is rejected. The learned trial Judge is expected to take appropriate view of the matter. The petition needs to be disposed of as premature. Petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Rvjalit