Quashed

Santosh Annarao Shetkar v. Panchafulabai Shivraj Biradar and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Apr 2011WP/1095/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, quashed an order allowing recall of a witness in a partition suit without recording reasons or affording an opportunity to the petitioner, directing restoration of the application to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 19th October, 2007 quashed; application restored to trial court for fresh decision.

Santosh Annarao Shetkar Vs Panchafulabai Shivraj Biradar… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.: 1095 OF 2011

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶6

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.: 1095 OF 2011

¶8

***

¶9

1.Heard Advocate Shri Deshmukh for the

¶10

Petitioner/ original defendant, Advocate Shri
Patil holding for Mr. Gunale for Respondent
No.1 (original plaintiff) and Respondent No.5
(original defendant_ as also Mr. Tandale for
Respondent Nos.6 to 10 (original defendants).

¶11

2.In a suit for partition, one of the
defendants, after filing of counter claim,
sought recall of witness examined by
defendants for further cross examination and

¶12

that application has been allowed on 19th
October, 2007. Shri Deshmukh contends that
it is without any opportunity to the
petitioner. He further states that when this
was pointed out to the trial Court by moving
anapplicationatExhibit-113,that

¶13

application has been rejected on the ground
that basic order dated 19th October, 2007

¶14

¶15

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO.: 1095 OF 2011

¶18

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶19

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶20

allowing such recall had attained finality.

¶21

3.The provisions contained in order XVIII
Rule 17 C.P.Code have been amended in 2002.
The scope available thereafter to Court is
laid down by Honourable Apex Court in its
judgment in the case of "Salem Advocate Bar
Association (II) V/s Union of India" reported
in 2005 (6) SCC 344 and more recently in
CivilAppealNos.2795-2796of2011
[K.K.Velusamy V.s N. Palaanisamy] on 30th
March, 2011. The impugned order passed in
2007 does not record any reasons. It appears

¶22

that the same been passed without giving an

¶23

opportunity to the petitioner. In the
circumstances, without going into more
details, said order dated 19th October, 2007,
passed below Exhibit-101 is hereby quashed
and set aside. The said application is
restored back to the file of trial Court for
taking fresh decision upon it, in accordance

¶24

¶25

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO.: 1095 OF 2011

¶28

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶29

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶30

with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶31

No costs.

¶32

4.At this stage, it is pointed out that
the suit as filed is of the year 1993.
Hence, trial Court shall attempt to take
appropriate decision on that application and
also attempt to decide the suit at the
earliest.

¶33

[B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.]
Dated:26/04/2011.
ans/1095

Santosh Annarao Shetkar v. Panchafulabai Shivraj Biradar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Annarao Shetkar v. Panchafulabai Shivraj Biradar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ahmedkhan Nawabkhan Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation.

Sulochana Kashinath Jangave Vs Indira Mahila Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. through Manager and Ors.

Nandu Dinkar Chaudhari Vs Kiran Govinda Bhandgale and Ors.

Ahmednagar Dist Cen.Co.Bank Ltd. Vs Bhagwan Laxman Sangale

Prakash Raosaheb Pawade and Ors. Vs Deorao Hari Pawade and Ors.

M.S.R.T.C.Nanded. Vs Venkatesh Ganpatrao Hingole.