{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9942 OF 2010 Sau.Suwarna w/o Dinesh Kolte Petitioner Versus Dinesh s/o Bhaskarrao Kolte Respondent Mr.R.F.Totla, advocate for petitioner Mr.P.F.Patni, advocate for respondent CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 20 th October, 2010 PER COURT: 1 An interlocutory order dated 30.09.2010, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, below Exhibit-39 in H.M.P. No.A.339/2008, rejecting the request made by petitioner for recording common evidence in two different matters is subjected to challenge in this petition. 2 The Family Court has directed to proceed in both the matter simultaneously meaning thereby both the matters would be dealt with by the Court one after another. Petitioner herein is insisting for recording of common evidence in both the matters, which request has been opposed by the respondent. 3 It is contended that evidence in the matter presented by husband is already over and in such circumstances, it would {2} not be desirable to direct recording of common evidence in both the matters. 4 Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of Sanjeev Indravadan Dani Vs. Mrs. Rupal Sanjeev Dani, reported in 2009 (2) Mh.L.J. 129. The facts of reported matter and instant matter are different and distinguishing feature in the instant matter is that recording of evidence of one of the side is already over and as such, no such direction for recording common evidence in both the matters would be desirable. In exercise of powers conferred upon this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, no interference is called for. Petition is devoid of substance. 5 Writ Petition, therefore, stands rejected. The Family Court, however, is directed to decide the matter expeditiously. R.M.BORDE JUDGE adb/wp994210