Bombay High Court
Dnyaneshwar Laxmanrao Gulhane vs Deepak Laxmanrao Gulhane And ... on 8 March, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
wp 7070.19. 1/3 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.7070/2019
(Dnyaneshwar V Deepak and others)
*************************************************************************************
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
*************************************************************************************
Mr. Rahul Tajne, Adv for petitioner.
Mr. S.R. Deshpande, Adv for resp. Nos.1, 3 to 7.
CORAM : AVINASH G GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 08-03-2023
The petition challenges the rejection of the
application to re-examine the plaintiff (PW-1) at Exh-78,
which has been rejected by the impugned order dated
05-09-19 (pg 84).
2. It is the contention of Mr Tajne, learned
Counsel for the plaintiff, that considering the nature of
evidence and specifically cross examination of PW-1
regarding the will of the year 1998, there is a need for
re-examination of the plaintiff in order to clarify an
ambiguity arising in the evidence of PW-1. He relies upon
the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Rammi alias Rameshwar vs State of M.P., (AIR 199 SC
3544) (para 70) and Geo-Group Communications INC vs
IOL Broadband Ltd, 2010(3) All MR 958 (para 6), to
contend that the admission given can always be explained.
It is submitted that for that purpose, there is a need for re-
examination of the plaintiff. A perusal of the evidence and
wp 7070.19. 2/3 4
specifically cross examination of the petitioner/plaintiff
(pg 73), would indicate that the petitioner was categorically
aware of the existence of two wills one of the year 1993
and other of year 1998 by his father. The cross examination
at page 73 indicates that the major portion of cross
examination was in respect of will of the year 1993. Before
the admission has been given in cross examination by the
petitioner/plaintiff regarding the will of 1998, the
petitioner/plaintiff was categorically asked two more
questions regarding the will of 1998. Not only that the
original of the will 1998, was in fact shown to him and upon
perusal of the same he had admitted the signature of his
father and two witnesses on this will. He has further
admitted that the contents of this will were correct,
whereupon it was given an Exhibit 76. It is this admission,
which has been given in cross examination which is sought
to be clarified by way of application for re-examination. In
my considered opinion, in the light of what has been stated
in para 17 of Rammi (supra), re-examination can be in
respect of an ambiguity but not in respect of an admission
specially given in cross examination on the basis of which
the will in question in this regard dated 09-06-1998 has
been exhibited. It is also material to note that the cross
examination of PW-1 was closed on 26-06-19 and the
application below Exh-78 came to be filed on 17-08-19,
which would further indicate that application for
re-examination has not been made immediately after the
cross examination is over, but has been made nearly two
months thereafter which also indicates that the application
is an after thought.
wp 7070.19. 3/3 4
3. I do not see any reason to interfere in the
order impugned in this petition. The petition is therefore
dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE
Deshmukh
