1 IN THE LHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2537/2001 Parvez Bhesania & Anr. PETITIONERS VS. Rustomji S.Vatcha & Ors. RESPONDENTS Mr.V.P.Sawant,advocate for the petitioner Mr.Zubin Behram Kamdin i/b M/s Wadia Gandhy & Co.for Res.3,5,7 CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J. DATE : 27th April,2009 P.C. . The petitioners have filed this petition against the order dated 27/2/2001 passed by the appellate authority of the Small Causes Court, Bombay rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner for calling upon the witnesses . The petitioners are the tenants and occupants of the suit premises room no.32 of Bai Hirabai,J.N.Petit Charity Trust Building, 189, Alibhoy Premji Marg , Bombay 400 007.The respondents are the trustees of the said Charitable Trust.The said Trust is registered and constituted for the purpose of providing houses to the poor and middle class Parsi families at very low rent amount. The respondent-Trust has filed a suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement 2 against the petitioners. During the pendency of the suit the respondent was allowed to carry out amendment in the written statement and pursuant to the said amendment he submitted list of four witnesses. The said application was rejected by the learned Small Causes Judge , against which the petitioner filed revision before the appellate authority of the Small Causes Court and the said revision was dismissed summarily by the appellate authority on 27/2/2000. 2] The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that by way of amendment he has pleaded that the persons who are residing and occupying room no.68 ,69 and 53 are not poor and middle class Parsis and thereby want to dislodge the claim of the respondents of their bonafide and reasonable requirement of the premises.The learned counsel has further submitted that if such averments were allowed in the pleadings of the written statement then the learned Trial Judge ought to have allowed the evidence in support of such pleadings. Gross prejudice and injustice is caused to the petitioners as the evidence of these witnesses is not allowed. The learned counsel has submitted that witness no.1 Scylla Vatcha is only of the production for the documents and she is not a witness to lead the evidence. 3] While countering these submissions the learned counsel for 3 the respondents has submitted that the learned Trial Judge has rightly refused this application preferred by the petitioner with a view to harass the witnesses. He has further submitted that the purpose of examining the witnesses is vague and the relevancy is also not specified in the said list of witnesses. He has argued that issue is in respect of room no.32 of the petitioner,while other room nos.68,69 and 53 are not concerned and so evidence of the occupants of the said rooms is unwarranted and not relevant. 4] After the plaintiff has examined his all witnesses and during the course of examination of the defendant if the plaintiff is called upon to produce the documents and list of new witnesses is submitted then at that stage it is prejudicial to the plaintiff . In view of the amendment the petitioner may lead evidence accordingly to prove his averments . The Trial Court has discretion to allow or reject the examination of a particular witness considering the relevancy and at what stage of the trial the amendment is sought and list of witnesses is presented. Under order 16 Rule 1 of C.P.C. the parties are required to submit the list of witnesses and sequence of the examination of the witnesses is to be maintained as per order 18 of C.P.C.. In view of the said provisions the Court is not precluded from using its discretion while entertaining the application for examination of the witnesses. The trial needs to have a time bound schedule and parties should not go on tendering evidence which is irrelevant. 4 5] The application for amendment was allowed on 14/2/2000 and the amendment was carried out on 29/2/2000. When the application for amendment was moved at that time petitioner no.1 was under cross examination . The evidence of the respondent i.e. original plaintiffs was over . The application for witnesses was placed on 14/3/2000 and the Trial Court has rejected it on 16/8/2000. The witnesses to whom he wants to examine are the residents of the same complex and calling upon to produce the record of their salary,PPF a/c ,passport, share certificates,LIC Policy,etc. is rightly held by the appellate authority as stray and irrelevant to defend the case of the respondents. The Court does not want to interfere in the concurrent findings of both the subordinate Courts. The petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.)