mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5576 of 2008 Shri Ghanshyam V. Choukulkar & Ors. .. Petitioners versus Shri Shashikant V.Choukulkar .. Respondent ... Mr.G.S. Godbole i/b Pallavi Dabholkar for the petitioners. Mr.Ketan A. Chothani for respondent. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 12th September 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr.Chothani waives notice for the respondent. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. 3. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgement and order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Division Pune, dated 9th June 2008 below Exhibit-697 in Special Civil Suit no.1332 of 1989. By this order, the request of defendant no.4 - petitioner herein to permit him to examine defendant no.3 as his witness has been rejected by the trial court. The analogy applied by the trial court to take that view to my mind is unsustainable. There is no legal basis as to how the defendant no.4 is precluded from examining another supporting defendant as his witness in respect of the matter which the defendant no.4 wants to assert and prove. The fact that defendant no.3 has not filed written statement can be no basis to arrive at a conclusion that the defendant cannot be permitted to examine defendant no.3 as his witness. The argument of the respondent that the subtle attempt of the defendant no.4 to examine the defendant no.3 as his witness is to fill in lacunae arising out of the non filing of written statement by defendant no.3 and more particularly to bring on record the documents which are not relevant to the stand taken by defendant no.4. It is not possible to countanance this submission. If the trial court during the recording of evidence is of the opinion that the question put to defendant no.3 as witness is not in the context of the stand taken by defendant no.4 in his evidence, it will be open to the trial court to refuse or reject that question while making necessary observation in that behalf in the proceeding itself. But, the fact that the defendant no.4 intends to examine someone as a witness who incidentally happens to be defendant no.3 cannot be the basis to deny that opportunity to defendant no.4. In the circumstances, this petition ought to succeed. 4. The impugned judgement and order passed by the trial court is set aside. The application Exhibit-697 filed by the petitioner defendant no.4 is allowed with the above observations. The trial court shall endeavour to expedite the trial and preferably finally dispose off the same by 8th February 2009. (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J)