1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.453/2011 NAMEDO REWATKAR ..VS.. SAU. VITHABAI BHOYAR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Rishi, advocate for the petitioner CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 28, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Wardha on 8.12.2010, dismissing an application filed by the petitioner for permission to examine the witness. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order dated 8.12.2010, along with the application for grant of permission to examine the Engineer who had drawn the map, it appears that the first appellate court did not commit any error in dismissing the application. It is necessary to note that the petitioner has not stated that the application has been made under order 41 rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code. Moreover, no reason whatsoever has been assigned before the First Appellate Court as to why the petitioner had failed to examine the Engineer at the time when plaintiff's evidence was tendered. It is only stated in the application that the Engineer was not examined to prove the Map in the trial court and since the suit was dismissed in view of the same 2 itwas necessary to grant an opportunity to examine him. It is not stated in the application that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence the evidence of the Engineer could not be adduced. In such circumstances, the court found that the respondent/ defendant would suffer great headship in case the petitioner was permitted to examine Shri Admane, the Engineer at the appellate stage for proving the map. The court rightly held that granting the prayer made in the application would amount an permission to cure the lapses on the part of the petitioner. The judgment reported in 2007(3) ALL MR 626 and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the facts of this case. Hence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP