Parasram Narayan Mehata And ... vs Janvi Parasram Mehata And Another
2016 Latest Caselaw 1619 Bom

                                         1                        WP-4466.16


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                        
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 4466 OF 2016




                                                
     1]       Parasram s/o Narayan mehata
              Age 32 years, occu. Nil unsound
              Mind u/g of defendant no.2




                                               
              Narayan s/o Udayram Mehta
              Age 64 years, Occu. Business,
              r/o Old Bus Stand, Tamsa
              Tq. Hadgaon District Nanded




                                      
     2]       Narayan s/o Udayram Mehta
              Age 64 years, occu. Business,
                             
              r/o Old Bus Stand, Tamsa
              Tq. Hadgaon District Nanded

     3]       Narmadabai @ naroda w/o
                            
              Narayan Mehata Age 57 years,
              Occu. Household r/o Old bus Stand,
              Tamsa, Tq. Hadgaon District Nanded
      

     4]       Nandalal s/o Narayan Mehta
              Age 36 years, occu. Business
   



              r/o Old Bus Stand, Tamsa
              Tq. Hadgaon District Nanded

     5]       Gita w/o Shankar Joshi
              Age 39 years, occu. Household





              r/o Tamsa Tq. Hadgaon
              District Nanded                    ... PETITIONERS
                                     (Orig. defendants No. 1 to 5)
              VERSUS





     1]       Ku. Janvi d/o Parasram Mehata
              Age 5 years, occu. Minor
              U/g of her mother Aarti w/o Parasram
              Mehata Age 26 years, occupation
              Household r/o Tamsa
              Tq. Hadgaon District Nanded
              At present resides at Indira Gandhi
              Ward Umarkhed Tq. Umarkhed,
              Dist. Yeotmal




    ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2016                ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:51:01 :::
                                          2                         WP-4466.16


     2]    Aarti d/o Parasram Mehata




                                                                         
           Age 26 years, occu. Household
           r/o Tamsa Tq. Hadgaon
           District Nanded




                                                 
           At present resides at Indira Gandhi
           Ward Umarkhed Tq. Umarkhed
           Dist. Yeotmal                        ... RESPONDENTS
                                     (Nos. 1 and 2 Orig. plaintiffs)




                                                
                                    .....
     Mr. Arvind S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioners
     Mr. Santosh B. Bhosale, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2
                                    .....




                                       
                                   CORAM :   SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

                              ig    DATE :   18th APRIL, 2016

     ORAL JUDGMENT :
                            

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally

with consent.

2. The petitioners-defendants are aggrieved by rejection by

Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, on 31 st March, 2016

of their application Exhibit-87 for setting aside no cross

examination order, in Regular Civil Suit No. 199 of 2015 filed

by present respondents for partition and separate possession

of suit properties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

advocate appearing for defendants - petitioners in trial court

has been practising at two places and he had not noted down

3 WP-4466.16

the date in the matter properly and consequently for quite a

few days due to inadvertance matter could not be attended to.

In the circumstances, the order of no cross examination came

to be passed.

4. Learned counsel for respondents, however, submits that

respondent No.1 is minor and respondent No.2 is her mother

who is also quite young and circumstances required suit to be

instituted by them for partition and separate possession.

5. Learned counsel further purports to contend that

interlocutory order with regard to award of maintenance

amount is not being properly followed. He submits that after

submission of examination in chief by the plaintiffs were

constrained to file evidence close pursis, and thereafter, this

application has been moved. It is being submitted that in the

process the plaintiffs are being harassed.

6. It appears that there is lapse on defendants' part to

prosecute the stages of evidence properly and the lapse about

their appearance on the dates would have caused

inconvenience to the plaintiffs-respondents.

7. In the circumstances, taking overall view of the matter,

it would be in the interest of parties, that the impugned order

4 WP-4466.16

is set aside with direction that the evidence be completed by

the parties as per the earlier order passed by High Court.

8. Accordingly, impugned order on Exhibit-87 in Regular

Civil Suit No. 199 of 2015, passed by Joint Civil Judge, Senior

Division, Nanded is set aside, subject to, of course, the

condition that the petitioners shall deposit a sum of

Rs. 10,000/- in the trial court towards costs for setting aside

no cross order.

9. The cost be deposited within a period of eight weeks

from the date of receipt of writ of this order and the said

amount may be allowed to be withdrawn by plaintiffs.

10. As such, writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.

11. Contentions of the counsel for respondents - plaintiffs

that he was constrained to file evidence close pursis, having

regard to the lapses. In case, proper application is moved by

the petitioners, same be decided by the court having regard to

merits of the application.

( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. )

sms