Vilas Rangnath Warpe And Another vs Saurabh Bharat Chavan And Another

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 1412 Bom
Judgement Date : 3 April, 2017

Bombay High Court
Vilas Rangnath Warpe And Another vs Saurabh Bharat Chavan And Another on 3 April, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
                                            1                              8 wp 7018.15.odt



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                        WRIT PETITION NO. 7018 OF 2015


1.      Vilas s/o Rangnath Warpe,
        Age-44 years, Occ. Agril.,

2.      Sopan s/o Ambadas Warpe,
        Age-40 years, Occ. Agril.,

        Both R/o Savali-Vihir (Kh),
        Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar.                        ...       Petitioners

                 Vs.

1.      Saurabh s/o Bharat Chavan,
        Age-15 years, Occ. Education,
        Since Minor, represented through,
        natural guardian mother,
        Sau. Meena Bharat Chavan,
        Age-35 years, Occ. Household,
        R/o Savali-Vihir (Kh), Tq. Rahata,
        Dist. Ahmednagar.

2.    Sadashiv s/o Rangnath Chavan,
      Age-55 years, Occ. Agril,
      R/o as above.                            ...  Respondents
                                ----
Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. S.S. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondents.
                                ----

                                                CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
                                                DATE  : 03-04-2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :
1.               Rule.         Rule made returnable forthwith.           Heard finally

with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.


2.               The order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior

Division, Kopargaon on 01.07.2015 below exhibit-73 in Special Civil


::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017                         ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:35 :::
                                         2                            8 wp 7018.15.odt



Suit No. 19 of 2013 is challenged in the present petition.


3.               The aforesaid application was filed seeking leave of the

Court for adducing the oral evidence of Vilas s/o Rangnath Warpe

i.e. petitioner no. 1 in the present petition, who is defendant no.1 in

the civil suit.        It was the contention of the petitioner in the said

application that, though, defendant no.3 in his evidence before the

Court has deposed that he was also deposing on behalf of

defendant no.1, in his cross-examination he has shown ignorance of

about some of the facts which are in the special knowledge of

defendant no.1. It was the contention of petitioner no.1 before the

trial Court that, to that extent he needs to be permitted to adduce

his evidence before the Court, however, the said application has

been rejected by the trial Court vide the impugned order. The trial

Court has held that, allowing the defendant no.1 to now enter into

witness box will have the effect of wiping out the admissions given

by defendant no.3, in his cross-examination which may prejudicially

affect the case of the original plaintiff.


4.               Shri C.K. Shinde, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submitted that petitioner no.1 intends to depose before

the Court, the only facts which are in his personal knowledge

relating to the first sale deed executed on 12.08.2008 by defendant

no.2 in favour of defendant no.1.


5.               Shri Chapalgaonkar, the learned counsel appearing for


::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017                   ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:35 :::
                                           3                            8 wp 7018.15.odt



the respondents has supported the impugned order stating that,

through-out the defendant nos. 1 and 3 are jointly defending the

suit.    The learned counsel submitted that, even the application at

exhibit-73 was jointly filed by both these defendants. The learned

counsel submitted that, from the application it is not clear as to

what extent the evidence is sought to be adduced by the witnesses

to be examined. In such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly

rejected the application.


6.               After having considered the submission, it appears to

me that, if the petitioner no.1 is allowed to adduce his oral evidence

in respect of first sale transaction dated 12.08.2008 which is

admittedly in his special knowledge, no prejudice is likely to be

caused to the present respondent i.e. original plaintiff. To that

extent, the request made by the petitioner no.1 needs to be

accepted. Hence, the following order is passed.

                                      ORDER

i) The impugned order dated 01.07.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Kopargaon below exhibit-73 in Special Civil Suit No. 19 of 2013 is set aside.

ii) The learned C.J.S.D. shall permit petitioner no.1 i.e. original-defendant No.1 to adduce his oral evidence restricted to first sale transaction dated 12.08.2008 and the facts which are in his special ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:35 ::: 4 8 wp 7018.15.odt knowledge.

iii) Writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.

(P.R. BORA) JUDGE mub ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2017 01:02:35 :::