JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. This Writ Petition is filed by original defendant Nos. 14 and 16 of Special Civil Suit No. 477 of 1988, which is pending before Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmednagar. Respondent No.1 is original plaintiff and other respondents are other defendants. 3. The case of respondent No.1, in short is as under: He stated that respondent No. 2 is a Partnership Firm, of which petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 to 16 were the partners. He said that, respondent No.3 as Holder of Power of Attorney of the partners of the Firm, had received certain amount for and on behalf of the Firm from him and the Firm ultimately failed to repay the amount. He filed the suit for recovery of the amount. Respondent No.3 who was defendant No.2 did not file written statement and it seems that he supported the case of the respondent No.1-Plaintiff. Other respondents opposed the suit saying that what happened between the respondent No. 1 and 3 (Plaintiff and defendant No.2) was not related to the Firm and business of the Firm, if monetary transaction took place in between them did not relate to the Firm. They thereby suggest that a Firm as well as the partners of the Firm are not liable to pay the amount claimed by respondent No.1-plaintiff. 4. In view of this, issues were framed. Respondent No.1 lead his evidence. When turn of respondent No.3 (Defendant No.2) came for recording evidence, he tried to submit his affidavit, as his examination in chief. The rest of the defendants including the petitioners opposed this move. They urged the Court to prevent him from leading any evidence for he had not filed his written statement. (He had filed pursis saying that he supported plaintiff’s case.) In view of this, it is obvious that, he would not be able to lead his evidence independently. 5. I am aware that, other defendants including present petitioners have made several allegations against him and respondent No.1- plaintiff, but still he is not able to lead his evidence independently. So, the learned Judge of the trial Court has erred when he allowed the respondent No.3 to lead his evidence. Such order should be set aside. 6. 5. I am aware that, other defendants including present petitioners have made several allegations against him and respondent No.1- plaintiff, but still he is not able to lead his evidence independently. So, the learned Judge of the trial Court has erred when he allowed the respondent No.3 to lead his evidence. Such order should be set aside. 6. Before concluding this, I must mention that, respondent No.3 has not lost the case as yet. The plaintiff is very much there in the contest to cross-examine the defendants, when their turn would come to lead evidence. Admittedly, some issues would put some burden to prove some facts on them too. They would try to prove that the respondent No.3-partner of the Firm misused their trust etc. They would try to prove that, those transactions were not related to the Firm and its business. These allegations would be made not only against their own partners, the respondent No.3 (defendant No.2), but also against respondent No.1(plaintiff). The plaintiff then would have ample opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the defendants and try to prove them false. It is obviously that he would cover the case of the respondent NO.3 (Defendant No.2). 7. In view of this, Rule is made absolute. The impugned order stands set aside.