Bombay High Court
Kantabai Pandharinath Pawar And ... vs Rajibai Ramchandra Pawar And ... on 2 September, 2016
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
WP No. 10472/2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10472 OF 2015
1. Kantabai W/o. Pandharinath Pawar
Age: Major, Occu: Housewife.
2. Radhesham S/o. Pandharinath Pawar
Age: Major, Occu: Labour/Mechanic.
3. Nandkishor S/o. Pandharinath Pawar
Age: Major, Occu: Driver.
4. Purushottan S/o. Pandharinath Pawar
Age: Major, Occu: Service.
5. Jitendra S/o. Pandharinath Pawar
Age: Major, Occu: Service.
All R/o. Brahman Galli, Kadrabad, Jalna.
Tq. & District: Jalna. ....Petitoners
Versus
1. Smt. Rajibai W/o Ramchandra Pawar
Age: 75 Yrs. Occu: Housewife
2. Prakash S/o Ramchandra Pawar [Died]
3. Dinesh S/o Ramchandra Pawar
Age: 46 Yrs. Occu: Business.
4. Badri S/o Ramchandra Pawar
Age: 42 Yrs. Occu: Business.
5. Shrikishan S/o Ramchandra Pawar
Age: 35 Yrs, Occu: Nil
All R/o. Neharu Road, Sarafa Line,
Jalna, Tq & District: Jalna. ...Respondents.
...
Advocate for Petitioners : P.P. Dama h/f. Nandedkar S.G.
::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2016 00:51:46 :::
WP No. 10472/2015
2
Advocate for Respondents 1 & 3, 5 : S.V. Natu
...
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATED : 2nd September, 2016.
JUDGMENT :
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent,
heard both the sides for final disposal.
2)
The petition is filed to challenge the order made by
the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna on Exh. 138. Both
the sides are heard.
3) It appears that in the suit plaintiff had completed the
evidence and had filed pursis of closure of evidence. Then
defendants were expected to lead evidence. As defendants did
not show interest to lead evidence, the order of no evidence
came to be passed against the defendants. The application at
Exh. 138 was filed for setting aside that order and for giving
permission to the defendants to lead evidence. In view of the
conduct of the defendants, the Court rejected the application.
4) The learned counsel for respondent, original plaintiff
submitted that this Court has granted stay to the proceeding
itself and due to that since October 2015 the suit has not made
WP No. 10472/2015
any progress. He submitted that he has no objection if the
defendants are allowed to lead evidence and he requested to
make order to expedite the things.
5. In view of these submissions, the petition is allowed.
The order made by the learned Trial Court Judge is set aside. The
application at Exh. 138 is allowed. The defendants are allowed to
lead the evidence. From the date of receipt of the order, the Trial
Court is expected to dispose of the matter within three months.
If the defendants do not show interest in leading evidence, it will
be open to the Trial Court to close the evidence again and decide
the matter.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]
ssc/
