Vinod Bhagchand Mandlecha And ... vs Hukumchand Ganeshlal Mandlecha ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4260 Bom

                                                                   W.P.No.4971/2017
                                        1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO.4971 OF 2017


1.      Vinod s/o Bhagchand Mandlecha,
        Age 47 years, Occu. Business and
        Agriculture

2.      Pratk Vinod Mandlecha,
        Age 26 years, Occu. Business,
        Both R/o Sillod, Taluka Sillod,
        District Aurangabad                               ..Petitioners

                Versus

1.      Hukumchand s/o Ganeshlal Mandlecha,
        Age 63 years, Occu. Nil,
        R/o Sillod, District Aurangabad

2.      Sadhana w/o Vinod Mandlecha,
        Age 41 years, Occu. Household,
        Both R/o 5, Jalna road, Sillod,
        District Aurangabad

3.      ShaheenBegum w/o Sayyed Khan
        Pathan, Age 29 years,
        Occu. Household, R/o Shivaji Chowk,
        Sillod, Taluka Sillod,
        District Aurangabad                               ..Respondent

Mr B.R. Warma, Advocate for petitioners
Mr A.D. Kasliwal, Advocate for respondent no.1


                                            CORAM : A.M. DHAVALE, J.

                                            DATE     : 10th July 2017

PER COURT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties,

petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

2. Counsel for respondents no.3 to 11 is absent.

3. The respondents as original plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.151

of 2015 filed application Exh.40 before the Joint Civil Judge, Senior

W.P.No.4971/2017

Division, Aurangabad, for permission to examine three Medical

Officers before placing his own evidence. Their application Exh.40

dated 8th March 2017 was adjourned to 30 th March 2017. On that day,

no say was filed by the defendants - petitioners herein. Learned

Counsel for the petitioners submits that Counsel for the petitioners

came late. Meanwhile, the impugned order dated 30 th March 2017

was passed and the application was allowed.

4. Apart from the fact that it was allowed without hearing the

defendants, It also suffers from lack of reasons for allowing such

application. The learned Advocate ageed for rehearing of application

Exh.40.

5. Considering the facts, the impugned order dated 30 th March

2017 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad on

application Exh.40 is quashed and the learned trial Judge is directed to

reconsider the application, permit the defendants to file say and after

hearing the parties, decide the same with reasons within a period of

fifteen days from the receipt of this order.

6. Rule made absolute in above terms.

( A.M. DHAVALE, J.)

vvr