1 955.nms.202.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ata NOTICE OF MOTION NO.202 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO.324 OF 1981 The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd .. Plaintiff V/s. Vardhaman Spinning and General Mills Ltd .. Defendant _____________________ Mr.Vatsal Shah i/b. Divekar and Co,for the Plaintiff Mr.Sandeep Parikh with Mr.Tapan Deshpande and Mr.Aditya Mohta i/b.Amarchand Mangaldas and Suresh A Shroff and Co , for the Defendant CORAM :R.M.SAVANT J. DATE :21st March,2011 P.C.:- The above Notice of Motion has been filed for the following reliefs: a) “That the Hon’ble court be pleased to direct that further cross examination of the Plaintiffs witnesses be recorded before this Hon’ble Court instead of before the Commissioner. 2 955.nms.202.11.sxw b) That in the alternative to prayer (a) above the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the defendants to confine their cross examination of the plaintiff’s witness Mr.V.Munikrishnan and the Plaintiffs other witnesses to their Evidence in Examination- in-chief in the Suit No.324 of 1981” 2) The parties are before the Commissioner appointed by this court for recording of evidence. The defendant seeks to confront the plaintiff’s witness with the evidence recorded in the Suit No.324 of 1981. It is the case of the plaintiff that the entire evidence is sought to be relied upon . They do not dispute the fact that the defendants are entitled to confront the witness of the plaintiff with the statements made in the earlier proceedings. 3) In my view, considering the mandate of Section 33 and Section 145 of the Evidence Act, no interference is called for, with the recording of evidence at this stage. If any evidence is recorded, which cannot be considered by the court,it would be open for the plaintiff to make submissions at the time of the hearing of the suit. With the aforesaid observations the Notice of Motion is rejected. (R.M.Savant,J.)