Syed Karamt Hussain Vilayat ... vs Dr. Shaikh Abdul Bari Shaikh ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 7569 Bom

                                                                          6_WP899112.odt


             
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 8991 OF 2012




                                                        
    Syed Karamt Husain Vilayat Hussain
    Age: 52 years, Occu.: Agri.,
    R/o Shirad Shahapur,




                                                       
    Aundha Nagnath, Dist. Hingoli.                             ..PETITIONER

                   VERSUS
    1.  Dr. Shaikh Abdul Bari Shaikh Shamsuddin




                                                
         Age: 61 years, Occu.: Business,
         R/o Shantipura, Cantonment,
         Aurangabad.

    2.  Gulam Ahmed Taher Ahmed
                                   
         Age: 48 years, Occu.: Business,
         R/o Wahed Colony, Aurangabad.

    3.  Shaikh Ibrahim Shaikh Hussain Patel
           


         Age: 50 years, Occu.: Business,
         R/o Fazilpura, Aurangabad.                            ..RESPONDENTS
        



                                       ....
    Mr. Shaikh Mujtaba Gulam Mustafa, Advocate for petitioner.
    Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for Respondent No.3.





                                       ....

                                          CORAM :  T.V. NALAWADE, J.

DATED : 21st DECEMBER, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides by

consent for final disposal.

1 / 3

6_WP899112.odt

2. The petition is filed to challenge the ruling given by the Civil

Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad when the evidence of Defendant No.3

was being recorded at Exhibit 111 in Special Civil Suit No. 448 of 2007.

During cross-examination, the learned Counsel for plaintiff showed only

signature part of one document to the witness and asked question as to

whether he can identify his own signature. Objection was taken by

learned Counsel for defendants to this question put up in cross-

examination. Contention was raised that unless and until complete

document is shown, such question cannot be put to the witness.

3. The suit is filed for relief of specific performance of contract of

sale and defendant has taken defence that so called agreement of sale

does not bear his signature. In view of the nature of defence taken, such

question was put up in cross-examination to the witness. The veracity of

witness can be tested by putting such question and the Court cannot

disallow such question. This Court holds that the Trial Court has

committed error in refusing to permit learned Counsel for plaintiff to put

the question the way in which it was put i.e. by showing only signature

part of the document. Such ruling cannot sustain in law.

2 / 3

6_WP899112.odt

4. In the result petition is allowed. Ruling given by Trial Court is

hereby set aside. Permission is given to learned Counsel for plaintiff to

put such question during cross-examination. Rule made absolute in those

terms. The Court is expected to dispose of the suit within six months

from the date of receipt of this order.

( T.V. NALAWADE, J. ) SSD

3 / 3