An appeal against an order refusing to recall a witness via affidavit. The High Court held that no case for interference was made out and dismissed the appeal in limine.
Appeal is dismissed in limine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO. 853 OF 2006
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 463 OF 2006
IN
SUIT NO. 925 OF 1990
1. Shri Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar, .. Appellants.
since deceased through his heirs
& Legal Representatives :
1a) Smt.Shantabai Vadiraj Vernekar
and 3 other.
V/s.
Sharad Chandra Prabhakar Gogate .. Respondent.
---
Mr.Jaydeep Lele i/by M/s.Crawford Bayley & Co.for the
Appellants.
Mrs.K.N.Velankar for the Respondent.
---
CORAM : R.M.LODHA & S.A.BOBDE,JJ.
DATED : 01st DECEMBER, 2006.
P.C.:
. We heard the counsel for the Appellants and
perused the impugned order.
2. It is not in dispute that examination-in-chief
of the witness is by way of an affidavit duly signed by
the witness -Sadanand Shet, who is sought to be
recalled. In this view of the matter, the observation
made by the learned trial Judge that the application for
recalling has been made to fill up lacunas, cannot be
-: 2 :-
said to be faulted.
3. No case for interference in the impugned order
is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine.
(R.M.LODHA,J.)
(S.A.BOBDE,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application for recalling the witness affidavit was made to fill up lacunas.
Shri Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar
Sharad Chandra Prabhakar Gogate
R.M.Lodha
S.A.Bobde
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court