In W.P. 928 of 2011, the Bombay High Court quashed an order rejecting an application for cross-examination. Relying on Modula India, the court held that a defendant whose defence is struck off retains the right to cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses.
Impugned order of 13-12-2010 quashed; application for cross-examination of plaintiff's witnesses allowed.
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.
wp928.11.sxw
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Writ Petition No. 928 of 2011
M/s. Fab. Fashions ... Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & anr. ... Respondents
Mrs. Rita Bhatia with Guru S. for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Bane-AGP for respondent no.1. Smt. Geeta Shastri i/b. Khilnani & co. for respondent.
CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J.
DATED :- MARCH 08, 2011.
P.C.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Causes Court dated 13th December, 2010 thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner below exhibit 37.
wp928.11.sxw
2
the learned Judge has rejected the application on a premise that the applicants had filed an application for setting aside the striking of the defence order whereas the application was for permission to cross-examine the witness examined on behalf of the plaintiff. The learned Counsel relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Modula India v/s. Kamakshya Singh Deo reported in 1989 AIR SC 162 in support of the proposition that even if the defence is struck of, the defendant is entitled to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs.
wp928.11.sxw
3
The application filed by the present petitioner for limited extant of crossexamining the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff is allowed.
March, 2011 on which date the petitioners will cross-examine the witness
wp928.11.sxw
4
namely Salim Khan.
of the plaintiff's witness and the arguments on behalf of the parties within a period of one month from today and decide the suit prior to closure of Court
before summer vacation.
(B.R. GAVAI, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a defendant whose defence is struck off is entitled to cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the application for cross-examination should be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh DeoExplained¶17
_Modula India v/s. Kamakshya Singh Deo reported in 1989 AIR SC 162_ · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Fab. Fashions
State of Maharashtra
Respondent nos. 2 and 3
B.R. GAVAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
