Hemant S/O Bhalchandra ... vs Smt. Pratibha Ajay Wadgaonkar And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4195 Bom

                                                                        46.wp.3159.2018.odt
                                             1

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

                               WRIT PETITION NO.3159/2018

          Hemant s/o Balchandra Wadgaonkar,
          Aged about 62 years, Occ. Retired,
          R/o. C/o. M. N. Gawande, Mothi Umri,
          Ayodhya Nagar, Akola,
          Tah. and District Akola.                          ..... PETITIONER
                                                                 (Ori. Def. No.1)
                                      // VERSUS //
 1.     Smt Pratibha Ajay Wadgaonkar
        Aged about 45 years, Occ. Service,

 2.     Ku. Ankita d/o. Ajay Wadgaonkar,
        Aged about 24 years, Occ. Education,

 3.     Gaurav S/o Ajay Wadgaonkar,
        Aged about 22 years,
        Occ. Education, All R/o Tilak Rashtriya School,
        Mothi Umari, Akola, Tah. and District Akola. .... RESPONDENTS
                                                                        (Ori.Pltff.)
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Shri O. Y. Kashid, Advocate for petitioner.
          Shri A. R. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.1.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   CORAM :       AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 08/03/2021

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1] Heard Mr Kashid, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.

Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondents.

 2]                Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.


 3]                Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing

 for the parties.



                                                                    46.wp.3159.2018.odt


 4]                The present petition challenges the order dated 16.12.2017,

by which the application for permission to cross-examine the plaintiff

has been rejected. It is not in dispute that a no cross order was passed

on 10.06.2015. Though, it is contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, that thereafter an application for consequential amendment

was filed and the same was allowed, no such order has been placed on

record. However, it is not disputed that an additional issue came to be

framed by the learned Trial Court regarding the valuation of the suit. It

is trite that all matters ought to be decided on merits and cross-

examination, is an integral part of the same. Any inconvenience caused

can always be compensated.

5] The impugned order, therefore, is quashed and set aside and

the application for permission to cross-examine as filed by the defendant

at Exh.37 is hereby allowed, however, subject to the costs of Rs.5,000/-

(Rs. Five Thousand only) to be deposited by the defendant prior to

commencement of the cross-examination before the Trial Court, which

the plaintiff will be entitled to withdraw. The learned Trial Court is

requested to decide the suit expeditiously and in any case within a

period of one year from the date of this order.

Rule is made absolute.

JUDGE Sarkate.