1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9931 OF 2009 Shri.Pandit Bhauso Ranadive ...Petitioner Versus Sou.Rohini Pandurang Jarag & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Sandeep S.Koregave for Petitioner. Mr.D.S.Sawant for Respondents. ...... CORAM:- A.S.OKA, J. DATED:- FEBRUARY 25, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in support of this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The Petitioner is the 1st Defendant in the Suit filed by the Respondents. Suit was decreed on 28th June 2002. The Petitioner preferred an Appeal which is pending before the District Court. 3. An application was made by the Petitioner at Exhibit 50 in the Appeal. In the said Application, it is stated that in the pending Appeal, the 2 Petitioner was permitted to amend his written statement. It is pointed out that the District Court framed additional issues. It is also pointed out that the Petitioner has been permitted to produce additional documentary evidence. It was contended in the said Application that as pleadings have been permitted to be amended and additional issues are framed, an order of remand be passed to enable the parties to lead further evidence. By order dated 1st September 2005, the said Application was rejected by the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge observed that order of remand will delay the proceedings. However, the learned District Judge under the said order permitted both the parties to lead evidence in the Appeal on the additional issues. The Petitioner as well as Respondent No.3 were permitted to lead evidence before the District Court. 4. Thereafter, the present Petitioner made an Application dated 1st October 2009 at Exhibit 157 praying that the Petitioner be permitted to cross-examine the Respondents in the Appeal. The learned District Judge rejected the said Application. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was permitted to amend the written statement in Appeal and in 3 fact, additional issues were framed by the Appellate Court. He submitted that it was necessary for the Petitioner to cross-examine the Respondents on the amended portion of the written statement. He submitted that as order of remand was not passed by the Appellate Court, the Petitioner was entitled to cross-examine the Respondents on the amended written statement as well as on the additional issues framed by the Appellate Court. 6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. By order dated 1st September 2005 passed by the learned District Judge, both the parties were permitted to lead evidence on the additional issues. In fact, on the basis of the amendment carried out to the written statement by the Petitioner, he was permitted to file additional documents. The Application at Exhibit 157 on which impugned order has been passed itself records that on the basis of additional issues and amendment carried out to the written statement, the Petitioner has already adduced evidence. 7. Thus the Appellate Court had already given an opportunity under order dated 1st September 2005 to the parties to lead additional evidence. Thereafter, when the Appeal was fixed for hearing, in October 2009, the Petitioner made the present Application seeking permission to cross- 4 examine the Respondents. The Appellate Court was fully justified in rejecting the said Application, as the Petitioner has already adduced evidence on the additional issues and on the amended issues. No case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is rejected. All contentions of the parties in the pending Appeal are kept open. (A.S.OKA, J.)