1 WP 5792/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5792 OF 2010 Shahaji s/o Shanker Gawli, Age 44 years, Occ. Business, R/o Jai Bajrang Market, M.I.D.C. Waluj, Bajajnagar, Aurangabad Petitioner V E R S U S Sunil s/o Vitthal Jadhav, Age 48 years, Occ. Service, R/o Snehankit Housing Society, Rx-2/5, MIDC Waluj, Aurangabad, Bajanagar, Aurangabad Respondent Mr. P.B. Kakade, Advocate, h/f Mr. G.S. Gadiwan, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. R.S. Sarvadnya, Advocate for the respondent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 22nd March, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing, at the stage of admission. 2. This Writ Petition challenges a peculiar order, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, on 14th June, 2010, allowing cross-examination of the petitioner / plaintiff. The facts leading to this writ petition, are as under : 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 274 of 2007. This suit was filed for recovery of possession of certain property at M.I.D.C. 2 WP 5792/10 Waluj. On 20th March, 2008, the petitioner / plaintiff filed his affidavit as his examination-in-chief, but the respondent / defendant failed to cross-examine him. The Court, on 27th March, 2008, ordered that the respondent / defendant would have no right to cross-examine the petitioner / plaintiff. 4. Thereafter, the respondent / defendant challenged this order by way of Writ Petition No. 6711 of 2009 before this Court, but the same was dismissed. In view of this, the respondent / defendant lost his opportunity forever to examine the petitioner / plaintiff. Unaware of this, the learned Judge, who was presiding over temporarily the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, allowed the respondent / defendant to cross-examine the petitioner / plaintiff. It is clear from the explanation received from the learned Judge that he was not aware of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 6711 of 2009 and it is clear that he had passed the impugned order inadvertently. Shri R.S. Sarvadnya, learned counsel for the respondent / defendant concedes to this. Therefore, the impugned order dated 14th June, 2010, deserves to be set aside. 5. On 2nd August, 2010, my learned predecessor had issued notice to the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, Shri A.S. Bhagwat, as to why action may not be taken against him for disregarding the order of this Court, passed in Writ Petition No. 6711 of 2009. Pursuant to this notice, Shri A.S. Bhagwat has submitted his explanation. On perusal of the same, I am convinced that the learned Judge was certainly unaware of the order passed in the Writ Petitiion No. 6711 of 2009 and no action against him can be taken. The notice and proposed action against Shri A.S. Bhagwat shall be terminated. 3 WP 5792/10 O R D E R a. Writ Petition stands allowed. b. Rule made absolute. c. Impugned order dated 14th June, 2010, stands set aside. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/wp/5792/10/22/3/11