Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Darius Kaikhushru Ferzandi and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Apr 2006WP/6437/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a trial court order that discharged a notice and rejected an application to re-examine a witness, the court held Order 17 Rule 2(c) CPC is directory. The High Court allowed the petition, directing the trial court to permit further examination of the witness and proceed with evidence within three months.

What did the court decide?

The trial court shall allow further examination of the plaintiffs' witness and both parties may proceed with further evidence within three months.

Union Bank of India Vs Darius Kaikhushru… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE
 WRIT PETITION NO.6437 OF 2005

¶4

 --------------------------------------------------------------------
 Office Notes, Office Memorandum Court’s or Judge’s
 of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders
 orders or directions and
 registrar’s Orders.

¶5

 --------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mr.S.M.Rairikar with S.W.Kulkarni for
 petitioners
 Mr.R.A.Thorat i/b M/s. Banatwala & Co. for
 respondents

¶6

 CORAM : P.V.KAKADE, J.
 DATE : 24TH APRIL, 2006
 P.C.:
 1. Heard the learned counsel for both
 the parties. Perused the record.

¶7

 2. Rule, rule made returnable forthwith
 by consent.

¶8

 : 2 :

¶9

 3. The petitioners-defendants have

¶10

 filed this petition against the order dated
 19.8.2005 passed by the trial court
 discharging his notice and rejecting the
 application for permission to further cross
 examine the plaintiffs’ witness.

¶11

 4. The learned trial judge appears to
 be of the view that the sufficient time was
 already granted and the ground that the
 advocate concerned was engaged in some other
 matter was not sufficient to allow the
 application and therefore the notice came to
 be discharged.

¶12

 5. Without further elaboration, I must

¶13

 note that the provision of Order 17 Rule
 2(c) of Civil Procedure Code cannot be said
 to be mandatory but is only directory for
 the purpose of smooth and speedy
 adjudication of the dispute. However, that
 does not mean that court should be hyper
 sensitive in such matter which ultimately

¶14

 : 3 :

¶15

 amounts to deprival of the party to put up
 their defence fully and effectively in any
 particular manner.

¶16

 6. In the result, I am inclined to
 allow the petition with certain directions.
 Hence, rule is made absolute. The petition
 is allowed with direction that the trial
 court shall allow the petitioners-defendants
 to further examine the Plaintiffs’’ said
 witness and both the parties, if found so
 necessary, shall be allowed to proceed with
 further evidence. All this process is
 further directed to be completed within the
 period of three months from the date of this
 order. With this direction the petition
 stands disposed of with no order as to
 costs.

Union Bank of India v. Darius Kaikhushru Ferzandi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Darius Kaikhushru Ferzandi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imamudin Chitasaheb Khairdi (Decd) by Lrs. Chandubi Immamuddin Khairadi and Ors. Vs Muslim Pachha Peth and Ors.

Sunanda Arvind Kutwal and Anr. Vs Sankanta Prasad Sharma

The Secretary, Janseva Shikshan Mandal and Anr. Vs Nemade Vilas Dhanaji and Ors.

Dr.Moreshwar Govind Oak Vs Ramkisan Ramratan Bhutada

Mohammed Adil Attarwala Vs Madhavlal N.Pittie and Ors.

Taherali Fazal Ali Vs Hidayatulla Yusufkhan Patel (Decd.)by Lrs.-Attiyabano H.Patel and Ors.