1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4972 OF 2008 Turab Baldar Tadvi, R/o Harivithal Nagar, Tadvi Bhavan, Jalgaon PETITIONER VERSUS Nazir Baldar Tadvi R/o Naygaon, Tq-Yaval, Dist-Jalgaon RESPONDENT ....... Mr.S.S.Manale, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.I.Nandode, h/f Mr.S.S.Patil, Advocate for respondent ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 11th June 2009 ORAL JUDGMETN : 1. By the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the original plaintiff has knocked the doors of this Court, challenging the order dated 23.06.2008 passed below Exhibit-49 in RCS No.17/2002 by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yaval. 2. Rule. 2 3. Considering the short point involved in the writ petition, rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 4. It appears that the plaintiff led evidence in support of his case, thereafter he filed an application for amendment of the pleadings, which came to be allowed. The said order is not challenged by the defendant / respondent. After the plaint was amended an application came to be moved below Exhibit-49 that as the pleadings are now amended, the plaintiff may be allowed to examine witnesses for getting the documents, produced at Exhibit-45, exhibited or proved, and to allow to cross examine witness No.2 examined on behalf of the plaintiff. By an order dated 23.06.2008, the application at Exhibit-49 came to be rejected by the trial Court and the same is challenged by filing the present writ petition. 5. During the course of arguments, my attention is drawn by the learned advocate for the petitioner towards the deposition of witness No.2 to whom the petitioner intend to cross-examine, as according to the petitioner, the said witness turned hostile and not supported the case of the plaintiff. With the assistance of the learned advocates for the petitioner and respondent, I have gone through the record. On perusal of the deposition of this witness it 3 appears that in the cross examination this witness has given certain admissions favourable to the respondent / defendant, however he has not contraverted any of the fact, which he has stated in examination-in-chief. In the premise, merely because this witness has given favourable admissions to the respondent, the attitude of the witness cannot be termed as hostile. Therefore, the order to the extent of rejection of cross examination of this witness need no interference. 6. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent opposed to tender the documents along with the list at Exhibit-45 as he wants to rely on the ruling reported in 2003 (2) BCJ page 441 in teh matter of “Balkisan Shivappa Shetty V/s Mahesh N.Bakta and others” . As already observed that the lower court is not at fault in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner / plaintiff to cross examine the witness i.e. P.W.2, which is the ratio of the said ruling and hence need not be referred. 7. However, fact remains that once the pleadings are allowed to be amended to which there is no challenge, then the party must be allowed to lead evidence so far as amended part of the pleadings is concerned, along with the documents, which are supporting the amended pleadings. In the premise, once the petitioner is allowed to amend the pleadings, however, rejected to produce documents in support of the pleadings, which are allowed 4 to amend, is contrary to the amendment of the pleadings. Therefore, so far as that part of the order is concerned, it is perverse and in violation of the legal provisions. In the premise, interference is required in the order passed below Exhibit-49 in which no reference is found as to why the production of these documents is rejected by the trial Court. Hence, to that extent the order is required to be quashed and set aside. 8. Rule made absolute in the terms indicated above and the writ petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. It is hereby clarified that the Rule is made absolute in terms of production of documents and to examine witnesses in relation to the documents only. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/wp4972-08