(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 2677 of 2009 Vasant s/o. Ganpatrao Kumbhare & 4 others. .. Petitioners. versus Sau. Nirmala w/o. Babruwan Bhuse & 2 others. .. Respondents. .................. Mr. K.A. Kadam, Advocate, for the petitioners. Respondent nos.1 to 3 served (Absent). .................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 7TH JULY 2009. COURT’S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 23rd March 2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Latur, in Special Civil Suit No. 32/2006, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioners for issuing summons to the Sub-Registrar and Talathi. (2) 2. Mr. K.A. Kadam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that since no consideration was given at the time of execution of the sale deed, the Sub-Registrar was a necessary witness. He further submits that for proving the revenue record, Talathi is also necessary to be examined. 3. The trial court has found that the registered sale deed is already on record, so also, 7/12 extract is on record and, as such, it is not necessary to issue summons to the said witnesses. 4. No perversity could be found with the approach adopted by the trial court, so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... bgp/wp2677