1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4937 OF 2009 Dr. Mangalesh s/o Bhalchandra Bapat .. PETITIONER VERSUS State Bank of India .. RESPONDENT Mr. Gopal Dodiya with Mr. S.S. katariya, advocates for the petitioner. Mr. S.A. Kulkarni, advocate for respondents. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 23 rd AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1 An interlocutory order passed by the trial court granting adjournment considering the request made by the petitioner / original defendant subject to payment of cost of Rs.4,500/- payable to the witness of the plaintiff is subjected to challenge in this petition. 2 The suit instituted by respondent / original plaintiff is for recovery of loan amount of Rs.3,89,880.60/- . The suit was instituted in the year 2007. During the continuance of the suit, witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff, namely, the manager of the bank. However, defendant sought 2 adjournment in the matter and requested the court to call the witness on the adjourned date for the purpose of cross examination. Considering the request made by the defendant, trial court passed the order adjourning the matter to facilitate the defendant to cross examine the plaintiff’s witness. However, trial court directed the defendant to pay cost of Rs.4,500/- to the witness of the plaintiff. The court took into account while awarding cost of Rs.4,500/-, the fact that the witness who is the manager of the bank is to be summoned once again and with a view to attend the court the witness has to spare three working days. Considering all the relevant circumstances, trial court deemed it appropriate to award cost of Rs.4,500/-. 3 It is the contention of the petitioner that the order directing imposition of cost payable to the witness is not in consonance with the provisions of Civil Manual. Civil Manual prescribes payment of charges towards traveling allowance and daily allowance to the witness. Rule 101 of the Civil Manual provides for payment of traveling allowance and daily wages to the witness. There are four classes of witness prescribed under Rule 101(3) Chapter VIII of the Civil Manual. Witness sought to be cross examined by the defendant can be classified in Class – I and would be entitled for re-imbursement in respect of journey undertaken in accordance with Sub Rule 6 of the Rule. 3 The court has also discretion in special cases to direct payment of reasonable sum to the witness as provided in sub-rule 4 of Rule 101. 4 Trial court after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects as well as on consideration of the request made by the defendant for adjourning the matter for facilitating him to cross examine the witness in reference to certain document, has considered the prayer made positively and adjourned the matter. Defendant in these circumstances cannot be permitted to make any grievance in respect of imposition of cost as directed by the trial court while considering his request. Even otherwise, this is not a fit case for causing interference in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition therefore stands rejected. 5 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb/wp4937.09.odt