Bombay High Court
Gram Panchayat, Parda Through Its ... vs Shri Gajanan Jairamji ... on 12 January, 2018
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp1734.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1734 OF 2016
1. Gram Panchayat, Parda,
through its Sarpanch,
Gram Panchayat, Parda,
Tah. Samudrapur, Distt. Wardha.
2. Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Parda,
Tah. Samudrapur, Distt. Wardha.
.... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
1. Shri Gajanan Jairamji Chandankhede,
Aged 40 years, Occ. : Labour,
R/o. Parda, Tah. Samudrapur,
Distt. Wardha.
2. Shri Vasanta Narayan Sawakade,
Aged 45 years, Occ. : Labour,
R/o. Parda, Tah. Samudrapur,
Distt. Wardha.
3. Shri Vitthal S/o. Sitaram Chandekar,
Aged 40 years, Occ. : Labour,
R/o. Parda, Tah. Samudrapur,
Distt. Wardha.
4. Shri Maroti S/o. Govindrao Ghumde,
through its legal heirs,
4(a) Sakhubai wd/o.Maroti Ghumde,
Aged 60 years, Occ. :Cultivator,
4(b) Dilip S/o. Maroti Ghumde,
Aged 44 years, Occ. : Cultivator,
4(c) Arun S/o. Maroti Ghumde,
Aged 44 years, Occ. : Cultivator,
::: Uploaded on - 19/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2018 01:14:04 :::
Judgment 2 wp1734.16.odt
R/o. Sant Tukdoji Ward, Near Rly.
Gate, Hinganghat, Tah. Hinganghat,
Distt. Wardha.
4(d) Sou. Sangita Wd/o.Gajanan Ghumde,
Daughter in Law,
Aged 35 years, Occ. : Cultivator,
4(e) Ganesh S/o. Gajanan Ghumde,
Aged 8 years, Minor,
appearing through his mother,
Plaintiff No.4(d) Sangita Gajanan
Ghumde, R/o. Parda, Tah.Samudrapur,
Distt. Wardha.
4(f) Babibai W/o. Moreshwarrao Shende
(Daughter), aged about 52 years,
Occ. : Cultivator, R/o.Nandanwan,
Kawely Kata, Nagpur, at present Parda,
Tah. Samudrapur, Distt. Wardha.
4(g) Venubai W/o. Vinayakrao Kalbande,
(Daughter), Aged about 50 years,
Occ. : Cultivator, R/o. Sant Tukdoji Ward,
Near Rly.Gate, Hinganghat, Tah. Hinganghat,
Distt. Wardha.
4(h) Damabai Rameshrao Chandankhede,
(Daughter), Aged about 46 years,
Occ. : Cultivator, R/o. Sindi (Rly),
Ward No.3, Seloo, Tah. Seloo,
Distt. Wardha.
Plaintiff No.4(a), 4(b), 4(d), 4(e), 4(f)
R/o. Parda, Tah. Samudrapur,Distt.Wardha.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri M.P.Kariya, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri P.S.Kadam, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : JANUARY 12, 2018.
Judgment 3 wp1734.16.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The original defendants, Gram Panchayat and Secretary of
Gram Panchayat have challenged the order passed by the trial Court by
which application (Exh.62) filed by them seeking permission to cross-
examine the plaintiffs' witness is rejected. The learned trial Judge has
recorded that the defendants have failed to cross-examine the plaintiff Nos. 1
and 2 inspite of the opportunities given to them and the defendants have not
been able to show any reasonable cause for the default.
4. According to the defendants, the default is because the advocate
who was representing them got selected and joined as Judicial Officer and
therefore, the matter went unattended.
5. Though the course adopted by the learned trial Judge cannot be
faulted with, in my view, considering the fact that the defendant No.1 Gram
Panchayat is a public body and the defendant No.2 is its Secretary, instead of
pedantic view as taken by the learned trial Judge, pragmatic view would sub-
serve the ends of justice.
Judgment 4 wp1734.16.odt
6. Hence, the following order:
i) The impugned order is set aside.
ii) The defendants are permitted to cross-examine the witnesses of
plaintiff, who are already examined.
iii) The learned advocate for the defendants, on instructions, have
given undertaking on behalf of the defendants that they will
not seek any adjournment and if an adjournment is sought, the
learned trial Judge may proceed with the matter.
The writ petition is disposed in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
RRaut..
