This document was relied upon in another suit, wherein the respondents are not the parties. In another suit, the said document is produced along with the translation and even the Translator was examined. Though the petitioner produced the certified copy along with the translation in the present suit, it is now realized that the respondents had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness, who did the translation of the said document in Marathi. Mr. Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel would submit that there is likelihood of raising objection by the respondents to such document and the transcript in Marathi and this document is very much relevant in proving the case of the petitioner. He submits that the other two applications were also rejected on the grounds, which are extraneous to the matter. He would submit that Mr. R.P. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was unable to attend the matter due to his medical conditions and accordingly he gave no objection to his colleague Advocate, who appeared. However, Mr. Joshi, learned counsel was not discharged from the said case. Inspite of this, the learned trial Court rejected the application for engaging another Advocate.
