1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3945/2008 (Bholaji Bhojraj Sikhardar vs. Sou. Sunderabai Champat Gedam and others) ====================================== CORAM : B.P.Dhamadhikari, J. DATE : 21 st NOVEMBER, 2008 Heard Advocate Manoj Kariya, for the petitioner and Advocate M.O.Zoting for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The challenge is to order passed below Exh.120, dated 16.02.2008 whereby the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Hinganghat has permitted defendant no.3 to be brought on record as plaintiff. Contention of Advocate Kariya is that the original plaintiff is the mother of said Defendatn NO.3 and as she could not face the cross examination and gave some vital admissions against her own interest, this exercise has been undertaken. He argues that thereby an opportunity to bring correct facts on record by further cross examining the plaintiff is being denied to the present petitioner. Advocate Zoting contends that the cross examination in which alleged admissions are given and the part of cross examination of the plaintiff is already on record and thereafter the application has 2 been moved and Court below has allowed it. He points out that whatever be the evidentiary value of examination in chief and cross examination, it can be adjudicated upon by the trial Court, but that cannot be the reason to challenge the impugned order in the writ petition. I have perused the impugned order. I find that court below has found the request made to be reasonable and therefore, has allowed it. The petitioner can point out the Court below the loss, if any, caused to him because of plaintiff not entering the witness blow for further cross examination. The trial Court is bound to take its notice in accordance with law on the point. At this stage, I find that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner/plaintiff in the matter. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit