Shri Prashant S/O Madhukarrao ... vs Mr. Mohd. Ainul Ansari And Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 3428 Bom

                                    1                                       wp4608.14




                                                                         
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     




                                                 
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


     WRIT PETITION NO.4608 OF 2014




                                                
     Shri Prashant s/o Madhukarrao Parlewar,
     Aged about 50 years, 
     Occupation - Service, 




                                       
     R/o 346, Ashok Chowk, Untkhana,
     Great Nag Road, Nagpur.  ig                          ....       PETITIONER


                         VERSUS
                            
     1) Mr. Mohd. Ainul Ansari,
         (since deceased) through his legal
      

         heirs :
         
   



         i) Mehrunnisa wd/o Mohd. Anal Ansari, - (Deleted as per
              Aged about 40 years,                   Court's order dt.
              Occupation - Household,                28-03-2016)
              R/o Kharbi Chowk, Plot No.14,





              Babulban, Nagpur.
         ii) Mohd. Alangir s/o Mohd. Anal Ansari,  (Amended as per
              Aged about 20 years,                    Court's order dt.
              R/o Kharbi Chowk, Plot No.14,           23-6-2015)
              Babulban, Nagpur. 





         iii) Mohd. Dastur s/o Mohd. Anal Ansari,
              Aged about 18 years, 
              R/o Kharbi Chowk, Plot No.14, 
              Babulban, Nagpur.
         iv) Mohd. Sarfaraj s/o Mohd. Anal Ansari,
              Aged about 15 years, 
              through natural guardian mother-
              Mehrunisa, R/o Kharbi Chowk,
              Plot No.14, Babulban, Nagpur.
         v) Aman Ansari s/o Mohd. Anal Ansari,
              Aged about 14 years, 



    ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2016                 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:25:08 :::
                                     2                                         wp4608.14




                                                                           
              through natural guardian mother-




                                                   
              Mehrunisa, R/o Kharbi Chowk,
              Plot No.14, Babulban, Nagpur.

     2) Mr. Sheikh Hanif Sheikh Chand,




                                                  
         Aged about 50 years, Occ.- Business, 

     3) Mr. Manoharsingh Tansensingh Saini,
         Aged about 50 years, Occ.- Business, 




                                       
     4) Mr. Yuvraj Kuksaji Akre,
         Aged about 49 years, Occ. - Business, 
                             
     5) Mr. Babu Punnuswami Reddy,
         Aged about 44 years, Occ. - Business, 
                            
     6) Smt. Geetashri Balkrishna Parwate,
         Aged about 52 years, Occ.- Business,
      


     7) Mr. Gopichand Gomaji Gaware,
         Aged about 65 years, Occ. - Business, 
   



     8) Chandrashekhar Raghvan Pillai,
         Aged about 65 years, Occ.- Business,
         R/o Plot No.32, Babulban, Shastri 





         Nagar, Old Bagadgaj, Nagpur.

     9) Mr. Haridas s/o Shankar Patil,
         Aged about 47 years, Occ.- Business,
         





         All R/o Plot No.32, Babulban, Nagpur.

     10) Mr. Kiran Manohar Salodkar,
            Aged about 58 years, Occ.- Business,
            R/o 259, Shankar Nagar, Nagpur.

     11) Nagpur Improvement Trust,
            through its Chairman, Nagpur.                   ....       RESPONDENTS




    ::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2016                   ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:25:08 :::
                                              3                                            wp4608.14




                                                                                       
     ______________________________________________________________




                                                               
               Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for the petitioner,
             Shri S.D. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.1(ii),
                         None for the other respondents.
      ______________________________________________________________




                                                              
                                   CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 28 th JUNE, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for the petitioner-

original defendant No.3 and Shri S.D. Deshpande, Advocate for the

respondent No.1(ii)-original plaintiff. None appears for the other

respondents though served.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The defendant has challenged the order passed by the trial

Court rejecting the application (Exhibit No.94) filed by him seeking

permission to cross-examine the plaintiff.

4. The learned trial Judge has recorded that the defendant

has earlier failed to exercise his right and has not cross-examined the

plaintiff. It is recorded that earlier application filed by the defendant is

4 wp4608.14

also rejected and now the defendant has not been able to justify his

conduct.

5. Be that as it may, looking to the nature of claim and the

fact that the suit has not proceeded further, in my view, the interests of

justice would be sub-served by passing the following order :

(i)

The impugned order is set aside.

(ii) The petitioner-defendant is permitted to cross-examine the

plaintiff.

(iii) The petitioner-defendant undertakes to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiffs within ten days.

(iv) The learned Advocate for the plaintiffs has stated that the

matter is fixed for 30-06-2016. The trial Court shall adjourn the matter to enable the petitioner-defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff. The petitioner-defendant shall

cross-examine the plaintiff till 29-07-2016. If the petitioner-defendant fails to cross-examine the plaintiff, inspite of the fact that the plaintiff remains present, the

petitioner-defendant will loose the right to cross-examine the plaintiff.

(v) The petition is disposed in the above terms

JUDGE

adgokar