(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2573 OF 2011 Lilabai w/o. Vasant Lahare, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Wakadi, Taluka : Rahata, .. Petitioner. District : Ahmednagar. (Original plaintiff) versus Dilip s/o. Nana Diwate, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Laxminarayan Nagar, Ward no.1, Sonawane Wasti, Gondavni, Shrirampur, Taluka : Shrirampur, District : Ahmednagar, .. Respondents and 5 others. (Original defendants) ....................... Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for respondent no.1 / caveator. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 27TH APRIL 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. V.S. Bedre, for the petitioner, and Adv. Mr. S.T. Shelke, for respondent no.1 / caveator. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 4-12-2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rahata, below Exhibit 37 in Regular Civil Suit No. 328/2010. 3. Application for grant of temporary injunction at Exhibit 5 is still to be decided. Parties have filed affidavits of third persons to substantiate their contention. Such affidavits filed by defendants are challenged by the petitioner / plaintiff. According to the petitioner, deponents therein are not residents of village Wakadi and, therefore, have no personal knowledge. Prayer was made to permit their cross examination to bring these facts on record. The trial court has by the impugned order dated 4-12-2010 rejected it. 4. According to Adv. Mr. V.S. Bedre, for the petitioner, rejection is improper as trial court has found no provision in (3) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, enabling such cross examination. He states that there are several judgments which permit such course of action. 5. Adv. Mr. S.T. Shelke, for respondent no.1, contends that all relevant aspects including legal provisions are looked into and there is no jurisdictional error. 6. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that judgments cited before it are mentioned by the trial court and then it has found that it has got jurisdiction to permit such cross examination if suo motu it finds it necessary or then it is satisfied of its need upon request made by any of the parties. In the present matter, it did not find it necessary. 7. In this situation, the trial court has looked into facts and also relevant law. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity. 8. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE bgp/wp2573