1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5098 of 2011 Naresh Bhiwaji Uikey and another Vs. Mohd. Kalam Pir Mohd. Sheikh and another. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. V.S. Kukday, Adv. for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 13 th October, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the trial court on 13.01.2011 permitting the petitioner to lead his evidence only to the extent of proving the documents which were not exhibited in the evidence of his power of attorney holder. It appears that the petitioner-plaintiff examined his power of attorney holder and since certain documents could not be exhibited in his evidence, the petitioner sought leave to examine himself after the cross-examination of the power of attorney holder. The application was rejected. The petitioner challenged the order in W.P. No. 1412/2010. A statement was made on behalf of the petitioner in this court that in the interest of justice leave should be granted to the petitioner-plaintiff to enter the witness box to exhibit only those documents which could not be exhibited in the evidence of the power of attorney holder. Since a limited prayer was made before this court, this court held that in the interest of justice it was necessary to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to prove the documents which were already on record as 2 the petitioner wanted to enter into the witness box only to prove the documents which remained unexhibited in the evidence of his power of attorney holder. In this background, the trial court rightly permitted the petitioner to lead his evidence to the extent of proving the documents which were left unexhibited in the evidence of his power of attorney holder. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court on 13.01.2011 as the order is in consonance with the order passed by this court on 08.06.2011 while deciding W.P. No. 1412/2010. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.