B. P. Dharmadhikari, J. - (1.)Heard finally Shri. D. C. Chahande, learned counsel for petitioner widow of Chandrakant and Shri. M. S. Wakil, learned counsel for respondent who also claims to be the widow of same person by name Chandrakant. Looking to nature of controversy Rule is issued in the matter and the same is made returnable forthwith.
(2.)Shri. Chahande, learned counsel is objecting to the order dated 16.01.2010 whereby the objection of petitioner to proposed examination of Advocate Rawlani, as witness of respondent/plaintiff came to be rejected. The said order was sought to be reviewed and the review has been rejected by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gondia on 15.02.2010.
(3.)Shri. Chahande, learned counsel states that Advocate Rawlani was engaged by the petitioner to defend herself and hence said Advocate cannot be examined against petitioner. He has relied upon the provisions of Sections 126 to 129 of the Indian Evidence Act and judgment (Yovas Vs. Immanueal, 1996 AIR(Ker) 1) and (Gurunanak Provisions Stores Vs. Duhonumal Savamal, 1994 AIR(Guj) 31), in support of his contentions. He has further invited attention to certain documents to show that those documents do not refer to any customary divorce and alleged customary divorce is not the reason for withdrawal of earlier proceedings.