Abdul Karim Miyan Mehboob Miyan vs Hasan Mohammed Bhai Balapurwala

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 9322 Bom
Judgement Date : 5 December, 2017

Bombay High Court
Abdul Karim Miyan Mehboob Miyan vs Hasan Mohammed Bhai Balapurwala on 5 December, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
  wp7287of2017.odt                                                                                     1/3

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                   NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                                            Writ Petition No. 7287of2017



  PETITIONER:                                        Abdul Karim Miyan Mehboob Miyan,
  (Original                                          Aged   about   68   years,   Occu:   Nil,   R/o   Near 
  Defendant)                                         Masjid,   Chhota   Loharpura,   Fawara   Chowk, 
                                                     Nagpur.
                                                                                                   
                                               -VERSUS-

   RESPONDENT:                          Hasan Mohammed Bhai Balapurwala,
   (Original                            Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business,
   Plaintiff)                           R/o Near Bata Shoe Company,
                                        Old Bhandara Road Nagpur.
                                                    
                                                                                

  Ms. R.V. Palaspagar, Adv. h/f Mr. Muhammed Ateeque, Advocate for 
  the Petitioner.
  Mr. A.A. Mirza, Advocate for the Respondent.

                                  
                                               CORAM: Z.A. Haq, J.
                                               DATED:  05.12.2017.


  Oral Judgment 

                        Heard.

                        Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.


  1.                    The   petitioner   (original   defendant)   has   challenged   the 

  order   passed   by   the   trial   Court   on   07/07/2017   by   which   the 



::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017                                              ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 00:18:34 :::
   wp7287of2017.odt                                                                                  2/3

  application (Exhibit No.39) filed by the defendant seeking permission 

  to   cross-examine   the   plaintiff   is   rejected.   The   petitioner/defendant 

  has   also   challenged   the   order   passed   by   the   trial   Court   on 

  24/08/2017   by   which   the   application   (Exhibit   No.42)   filed   by   the 

  defendant reiterating his prayer for permission to cross-examine the 

  plaintiff is rejected. 



  2.                    Though, the reasons recorded by the learned trial Judge for 

  rejecting the applications cannot be faulted with and it cannot be said 

  that   the   impugned   orders   suffer   from   any   illegality   or   error   of 

  jurisdiction,   considering   the   fact   that   the   civil   suit   is   filed   by   the 

  respondent/plaintiff   praying   for   decree   for   specific   performance   of 

  contract   in   respect   of   the   shop   block   and   the   civil   suit   has   not 

  progressed further and is at the same stage at which it was when the 

  applications (Exhibit-39 and Exhibit-42) were filed, in my view, the 

  interests   of   justice   would   be   sub-served   by   passing   the   following 

  order:

                                                               ORDER

1) The impugned orders are set aside. ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 00:18:34 :::

   wp7287of2017.odt                                                                              3/3

                        2)                     The prayer made by the  petitioner/defendant  

for grant of permission to cross-examine the plaintiff is allowed.

3) The defendant shall cross-examine the plaintiff on the date on which the proceedings of the civil suit are fixed before the trial Court. If the defendant fails to avail the opportunity, the trial Court may proceed further according to law.

4) The amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by the petitioner / defendant before the trial Court as per the order passed by this Court on 15/11/2017 be given to the respondent/plaintiff.

The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.

JUDGE nandurkar ::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 00:18:34 :::