Anusaya Vithobaji Umate And ... vs Sitaram Bansi Waghamare
2017 Latest Caselaw 2065 Bom

 Judgment                                             1                                wp6502.16.odt




                  
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                            WRIT PETITION NO. 6502  OF 2016


 1.    Anusaya Vithobaji Umate,
       Aged about 55 years, 
       Occu.: House Maid. 

 2.    Ashok S/o. Vithobaji Umate, 
       Aged about 30 years, Occ.:Labourer, 
       Both R/o. Khandoba Ward, 
       Hinganghat, Tah. Hinganghat,
       Distt. Wardha. 
                                                                        ....  PETITIONERS.

                                       //  VERSUS //


 Sitaram Bansi Waghamare,
 Aged 70 year, Occu.: Agriculturist, 
 R/o. Veer Bhagatsingh Ward, 
 Hinganghat, Tah. Hinganghat, 
 Distt. Wardha. 
                                                                         .... RESPONDENT
                                                                                       . 

 ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri R.M.Wasnik, Advocate for Petitioners. 
 Shri T.B.Pantavne, Advocate for Respondent. 
 ___________________________________________________________________

                              CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : APRIL 27, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Judgment 2 wp6502.16.odt

3. The original defendants have challenged the order passed by

the trial Court by which the application (Exh.No.27) filed by them praying

that they may be permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff is rejected.

4. The learned trial Judge has recorded that the examination-in-

chief of the plaintiff is conducted on 20th July, 2015 and then the defendants

failed to cross-examine him. The defendants filed an application (Exh.No.25)

on 28th February, 2016 which was allowed and the defendants were

permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff, still the cross-examination was not

conducted an then application (Exh.No.27) is filed on or before 29th March,

2016 which is rejected by the impugned order.

5. Though I find that the impugned order does not suffer from any

illegality or error of jurisdiction, considering the the claim in the civil suit, 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   defendants   are   permitted   to   cross-examine   the 

plaintiff, however, on condition that the defendant shall cross-

examine the plaintiff on the date the matter is fixed for it before

the trial Court and if the defendants fail to cross-examine the

Judgment 3 wp6502.16.odt

plaintiff on the date fixed by the trial Court, the defendants will

lose the opportunity of cross-examining the plaintiff and the

trial Court shall proceed further according to law.

iii) The petitioners/defendants shall pay costs to the

respondent/plaintiff calculating it at Rs.1000/- per

adjournment sought by the petitioners/defendants before the

trial Court on the ground that this writ petition is pending.

iv) The amount of costs shall be paid by the petitioners

/defendants to the plaintiff till 2nd May, 2017.

The petition is allowed in the above terms.

JUDGE

RRaut..