Bombay High Court
M/S. Coventry Spring And ... vs Navbharat Press (Raipur) Pvt. ... on 27 July, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp2199.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2199 OF 2016
M/s. Coventry Spring and Engineering
Co. Ltd., A Company established under
the Companies Act, having its registered
office at 318, Block-A, Lake Town, Kolkata
700089, Nagpur through its Power of
Attorney Holder Shri Narendramal Bafna
S/o. Late Mishrimal Bafna.
ig .... PETITIONER.
(Org. Deft.No.1)
// VERSUS //
1. Navbharat Press (Raipur) Pvt. Ltd.
A company Registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 and having its
registered at 71, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur
440010, through its Director,
Sameer Maheshwari.
2. M/s. Navbharat Press (Raipur)
A registered partnership firm, having
its registered office at Press Complex,
G.E. Road, Raipur- 492001, through
its Director Shri Sameer Maheshwari.
3. Sameer Prakash Maheshwari, aged
about 35 years, Occupation :Business,
R/o. 71, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur-44010.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
(Org. Plffs.)
___________________________________________________________________
Shri Shyam Dewani, Advocate for Petitioner-original Deft.No.1.
Shri Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for Respondents/ original plaintiffs.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : JULY 27, 2016.
Judgment 2 wp2199.16.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3.
The civil suit filed by the respondents/ plaintiffs is at the stage
of recording of the evidence of the plaintiffs' witness. The examination-in-
chief of Shri Manish Chandak, who was working as General Manager
(Finance) with the plaintiff-company is recorded and part of the cross-
examination is also conducted on behalf of the defendant No.1. On 10 th
February, 2016 the defendant No.1 sought adjournment by filing application
(Exh.175) on the ground that the advocate for the defendant No.1 was held-
up in some matter before the Division Bench at High Court. This application
was rejected by the learned trial Judge on 10 th February, 2016 observing that
the reason given for seeking adjournment was not satisfactory and the
defendant No.1 had sought several adjournments earlier also and the cross-
examination of the above referred witness was not completed since 2014.
The learned trial Judge recorded that the matter to proceed without cross-
examination of the above referred witness. The defendant No.1 filed
application (Exh.178) praying that the order passed on 10 th February,
2016 be set aside and the defendant No.1 be permitted to
Judgment 3 wp2199.16.odt
further cross-examine the plaintiffs' witness. This application is rejected by
the impugned order.
4. The learned advocate for the respondents/ plaintiffs has
submitted that Shri Manish Chandak was working as General Manager
(Finance) with the plaintiff-company, however, he is not in the employment
of the plaintiff-company since 1st April, 2016 and it would be difficult for the
plaintiff-company to produce him for further cross-examination. This event
has occurred subsequent to passing of the impugned order.
5. Considering the undertaking given on behalf of the defendant
No.1 that he will cross-examine the plaintiffs' witness on the next date and
will not seek adjournment for that purpose, prima-facie, I am of the view that
the defendant No.1 can be granted opportunity to further cross-examine the
plaintiffs' witness. However, the subsequent event that Shri Manish Chandak,
General Manager(Finance) has ceased to be in the employment of the
plaintiff-company and the submission made on behalf of the plaintiff that it
will not be possible for the plaintiff-company to produce him for cross-
examination will have to be considered. As the learned trial Judge has not
considered this aspect as he was not required to consider this aspect when
the impugned order was passed, I feel it appropriate that this aspect should
be considered by the learned trial Judge.
Judgment 4 wp2199.16.odt
6. Hence, the following order :
i) The impugned order is set aside.
ii) The learned trial Judge shall reconsider the request of
the defendant No.1 subject to the difficulty expressed on behalf
of the plaintiffs.
iii) After hearing the defendant No.1 and the plaintiffs, the
learned trial Judge shall pass appropriate orders on application
(Exh.178).
iv) This indulgence is shown in favour of the defendant
No.1 on his solemn assurance that if the plaintiffs' witness is
produced, the defendant No.1 will cross-examine him and will
not seek adjournment.
The petition is disposed in the above terms.
The defendant No.1 shall pay costs of Rs.Ten Thousand to the
plaintiffs and produce receipt on record of the trial Court by next date.
As the civil suit is of 2006 the learned trial Judge is requested
to dispose it till 25th January, 2017.
JUDGE
RRaut..
Judgment 5 wp2199.16.odt
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by : R.B. Raut, PS Uploaded on : 02.08.2016.
