Abdul Karim Miyan Mehboob Miyan vs Hasan Mohammed Bhai Balapurwala
2017 Latest Caselaw 9322 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 9322 Bom
Judgement Date : 5 December, 2017

Bombay High Court

Abdul Karim Miyan Mehboob Miyan vs Hasan Mohammed Bhai Balapurwala on 5 December, 2017

Bench: Z.A. Haq

wp7287of2017.odt 1/3

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

Writ Petition No. 7287of2017

PETITIONER: Abdul Karim Miyan Mehboob Miyan,
(Original Aged about 68 years, Occu: Nil, R/o Near
Defendant) Masjid, Chhota Loharpura, Fawara Chowk,
Nagpur.

-VERSUS-

RESPONDENT: Hasan Mohammed Bhai Balapurwala,
(Original Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business,
Plaintiff) R/o Near Bata Shoe Company,
Old Bhandara Road Nagpur.

Ms. R.V. Palaspagar, Adv. h/f Mr. Muhammed Ateeque, Advocate for
the Petitioner.
Mr. A.A. Mirza, Advocate for the Respondent.

CORAM: Z.A. Haq, J.
DATED: 05.12.2017.

Oral Judgment

Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

1. The petitioner (original defendant) has challenged the

order passed by the trial Court on 07/07/2017 by which the

::: Uploaded on - 15/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2017 00:18:34 :::
wp7287of2017.odt 2/3

application (Exhibit No.39) filed by the defendant seeking permission

to cross-examine the plaintiff is rejected. The petitioner/defendant

has also challenged the order passed by the trial Court on

24/08/2017 by which the application (Exhibit No.42) filed by the

defendant reiterating his prayer for permission to cross-examine the

plaintiff is rejected.

2. Though, the reasons recorded by the learned trial Judge for

rejecting the applications cannot be faulted with and it cannot be said

that the impugned orders suffer from any illegality or error of

jurisdiction, considering the fact that the civil suit is filed by the

respondent/plaintiff praying for decree for specific performance of

contract in respect of the shop block and the civil suit has not

progressed further and is at the same stage at which it was when the

applications (Exhibit-39 and Exhibit-42) were filed, in my view, the

interests of justice would be sub-served by passing the following

order:

ORDER

1) The impugned orders are set aside.

   wp7287of2017.odt                                                                              3/3

                        2)                     The prayer made by the  petitioner/defendant

for grant of permission to cross-examine the plaintiff is

allowed.

3) The defendant shall cross-examine the plaintiff

on the date on which the proceedings of the civil suit are

fixed before the trial Court. If the defendant fails to avail

the opportunity, the trial Court may proceed further

according to law.

4) The amount of Rs. 10,000/- deposited by the

petitioner / defendant before the trial Court as per the

order passed by this Court on 15/11/2017 be given to the

respondent/plaintiff.

The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.