SBCWP NO.651/2008. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.651/2008. Vijay Lakhshmi and anr. Vs. The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Ajmer and ors. Date of order :- 25/1/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Shri Bihari Lal Agarwal for the petitioners. **** The present writ petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 17/11/2007 whereby the court below passed an order to the effect that witness Omprakash can depose statement in his own capacity but not in the capacity of a Principal and thereby the objections taken by the non-petitioner regarding deposition of the statement by Omprakash in the capacity of Principal was accepted however, the order has not taken away the liberty of the witnesses Omprakash to make inspection. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order impugned virtually means that whatever statement made by Omprakash in the form of affidavit has been rejected whereas, if at all it was required that Omprakash should make deposition in his own capacity, the portion showing his capacity as Principal should have been ignored. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner even deposition of Omprakash in his own capacity has also been rejected and, therefore, this writ petition has been filed. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the SBCWP NO.651/2008. 2 Apex Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. and ors. : (2005) 2 SCC 217. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the material on record as well as the judgment cited at the bar. Perusal of the order does not reveal that deposition of Omprakash has been rejected by itself but what has been mentioned that Omrakash cannot make statement in the capacity of Principal but would be at liberty to make his deposition in his own capacity therefore, if petitioner has his own capacity to make deposition or make statement as witnesses, he is free to do it except with one rider that he cannot make deposition in place of Principal. In view of above, the apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct because the petitioner is always at liberty to make his deposition in his own capacity in regard to any fact which is concerned to him. Thus, the writ petition filed under the apprehension which does not exist cannot be maintained hence, same is dismissed. The judgment aforesaid also do not help the petitioner. However, if effective and necessary deposition is submitted by the petitioner in his own capacity and with the facts concerned to him and still any adverse order is passed by the court below, the petitioner is always free to approach this Court. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. anil