Dismissed

Ritika M. Chandnani and Anr. v. Sarfaraz Munir Ahmed Shamsi and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Mar 2009WP/1488/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging denial of permission to produce certified court proceedings as evidence or cross-examine witnesses. Court held petition fails as attempt seeks to produce own evidence or get indulgence. However, formal application for further cross-examination may be filed.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of. Open to file formal application for further cross-examination.

Ritika M. Chandnani and Anr. Vs Sarfaraz Munir Ahmed Shamsi and Anr. — Partition | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

Lsp

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1488 of 2009

¶4

Ritika M. Chandnani & anr. ...Petitioner v/s. Sarfaraz Munir Ahmed Shamsi & anr. ...Respondent Mr. P.S.Dani i/b. Mrs. Neela A. Dholakia for the petitioner. Mr. J.A.Udaipuri i/b. Vinay S. Bhorge for respondents 1 & 2.

¶5

CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED : MARCH 18, 2009

¶6

P.C.

¶7

. Heard Counsel for the parties.

¶8

2. A	ccording to	Petitioners, even if Petitioners’
defence	has	been struck out,	nothing precludes	the
Petitioners	from	moving the Court	to enable them	to
produce	certifie	d copies of Court	proceedings	between
the	plaintiffs	and Head landlord.	The argument	clearly
overlooks	that,	that attempt would	be to permit	the
Petitioners	to	produce their own	evidence.	Moreover,
merely	because	the documents	which the	Petitioners
propose	to	produce are certified	copies cannot	be
straightway	read	into evidence as such.	It would	have
been a	different	matter if the Pet	itioners were to	apply
to the	App	ellate Court for allowin	g them to	further
cross-examine		the plaintiff’s witness	so as to	confront
them	in the	light of the subsequent	development and	in

¶9

¶10

particular	the co	ntents	of	th	e		ce	rtified	copies o	f	the
documents	which	they	in	tend			to	produce.	That		perhaps
may be	permissible	in	the	lig	h	t	of	the	exposition	of	the
Apex	Court in	Modula	In	dia		v/	s.	Kama	kshya Si	ngh	Deo
reported	in (1988)	4	SCC	61	9		in	particu	lar para	16,	18
and	19 thereof.	The	A	pex		C	ourt	has	taken the	view	that
the	defendant	can	be	al	l	ow	ed	right	to cr	oss-exa	mination
and	arguments	that	is	the			limited	indu	lgence	that	is
available	to the	de	fendan	t		w	hose	defen	ce is	struck	off.
Thus	understood,	no	fault	ca	n		be	found	with th	e	Court

¶11

below in rejecting the Petitioners’ subject application.

¶12

3.	Hence, this	Petitio	n fails.	Howe	ver, it is	made
clear	that	it	will	be	op	en to the Petitioners	to	take
out	formal	app	lication		befo	re the Appell	ate	Court
seeking	appropr	iate	r	elief	as	may be advised so	as	to
permit	them		to	fur	ther	cross-examine the		plaintiff’s
witnesses.		If	suc	h	applica	tion is filed, the	same	will

¶13

have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with

¶14

law.

¶15

Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶16

[A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]

Ritika M. Chandnani and Anr. v. Sarfaraz Munir Ahmed Shamsi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritika M. Chandnani and Anr. v. Sarfaraz Munir Ahmed Shamsi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Rustom Behramji Colah(Decd.) - Dr.Aspi Framroze Golwala and Ors. Vs M/S. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Smt. Shantabai Jagannath Patil and Others Vs Shri Mohanlal Manikchand Binaykiya

Shree Swami Narayan Rahivasi Seva Sangh (Regd.) Association Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Padmarekha Arts Vs Mahila Seva Mandal, Pune and Ors.

Rajkumar Premraj Somani and Anr. Vs Jaykumar Radhakisan Agrawal and Ors.

Shankar Kondiba Mandhare Vs Ganpat Kalu Mandhare