1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5302/2007 (Khemchand Lalchand Thadani Vs. Krishnadas Zaverchand Ganglani & ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. Nitin Lalwani h/f Mr. Shyam Dewani, Adv. for petitioner. Mr. V.M. Deshpande, Adv. for R-1. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 19 th NOVEMBER, 2008. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed in Misc. Civil Application No. 46/2007 on 6th October, 2007, and the order passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn. Amravati on 3rd September, 2007. By the impugned order dated 3rd September, 2007, the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Amravati, had rejected the application filed by the petitioner for deleting the portion of the evidence of the plaintiff which had been recorded by way of further examination-in-chief on 7/7/2007. The order dated 3rd of September, 2007 was upheld in an appeal. The petitioner is the tenant and a suit was instituted by the respondent no.1- Landlord for his eviction on the ground that the shop premises were required by the respondent no.1 for his bona fide 2 need. The evidence of the respondent no.1's son was tendered on affidavit on 22/9/2005. An amendment application was filed by the respondent no.1 with a view to incorporate a fact that the tenanted premises occupied by the respondent no.1 to carry on his business, were required to be vacated by him and there was no place to carry on his business. The amendment application was allowed, but the order passed by trial Court allowing the amendment application was set aside in an appeal filed by the petitioner. The respondent no.1 had applied before the trial Court for leading further evidence i.e. further examination-in-chief and the same was allowed. The evidence of the respondent no.1 was recorded on 7/7/2007 in view of the permission to lead further evidence. The petitioner filed an application for deleting the portion of the evidence adduced on 7/7/2007, on the ground that it was de hors the pleadings. The application was, however, rejected by the trial Court by the order dated 3rd September, 2007. An appeal filed against the same was also dismissed. Both these orders are impugned in the instant petition. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also perused both the impugned orders. It is necessary to note that the petitioner had not challenged the order passed by 3 the trial Court allowing the application filed by the respondent no.1 for leading further evidence and the evidence was tendered by the respondent no.1 on 7/7/2007. The application filed by the petitioner for deleting the portion of the evidence of the plaintiff was rightly filed by the Court on the ground that the evidence could very well be discarded at the appropriate stage of the proceedings and in the judgment which would be delivered in the case. The Court had observed in the impugned order that the evidence led by a party was required to be discarded if it was beyond the scope of the pleadings. The Court further rightly observed that the petitioner had moved the application with an intention to prolong the trial of the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court held that the application was without any substance and deserved to be filed. There is no error in the impugned orders passed by the trial and the first appellate Courts. The Courts had not rejected the application filed by the petitioner in its totality and had recorded that the evidence could have been discarded at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. The petitioner had also not challenged the order passed by the trial Court allowing the application filed by the respondent no.1 for leading further evidence in 4 examination-in-chief. There is no jurisdictional error in the order passed by both the Courts. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. It appears that during the pendency of the present writ petition, this Court had called for the record and proceedings. The Registry is directed to remit the record and proceedings to the trial Court immediately. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 10th December, 2008. JUDGE RMP