Allowed

Kazi Hamidoddin Chiragoddin Kazi and Others v. Mohammad Salauddin Bahauddin Kazi and Another

Bombay HC24 Apr 2013CRA/109/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a civil revision application filed by Kazi Hamidoddin and others challenging the refusal to examine five witnesses. The applicants initially relied on provisions under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC. The respondents objected to the application for lack of stated purpose/relevance. Subsequently, the applicants sought withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh application specifying the purpose.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Application allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application before the Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad stating the purpose for examining five witnesses.

Kazi Hamidoddin Chiragoddin Kazi and Others Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 cra109.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 109 OF 2013

¶4

Kazi Hamidoddin s/o Chiragoddin Kazi,
Age: 75 years, Occ: Trustee,
R/o. Shevgaon, Tq. Shevgaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar and others. ...APPLICANTS

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

Mohammad Salauddin s/o Bahauddin
Kazi, Age: 34 years, Occ: Nil,
R/o. Near Arab Function Hall,
Jaswantpura, Aurangabad
Dist. Aurangabad and another. ...RESPONDENTS

¶7

...

¶8

Mr. R.R. Mantri, Advocate h/f Mr. Z.M. Pathan,
Advocate for revision applicants.
Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Y.B. Pathan, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶9

...

¶10

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J.

¶11

 DATE : 24th APRIL, 2013

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

.The learned Counsel appearing for the

¶14

revision applicants advanced arguments on merits

¶15

and submitted that, the applicants wanted to
examine five witnesses. He invited my attention

¶16

2 cra109.13

¶17

to the provisions of Order 16 sub-rule (3) of Rule

¶18

1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and submitted
that, if the said provision is read in the light
of the reported judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Mange Ram vs. Brij Mohan and others

¶19

[AIR 1983 SC 925(1)], if the witnesses are
produced on a particular day before the Court when
the evidence of the party is being recorded and
not closed, the Court has no jurisdiction to
refuse to examine the witnesses who are present in
the Court on the short ground that the names of
the witnesses were not mentioned in the list filed
under sub rule (1) of Order 16 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. Therefore, he submits that, this
Civil Revision Application deserves to be allowed.

¶20

2.On the other hand, the learned Counsel
appearing for the respondents relying upon the
reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case

¶21

of Kokkanda B. Poondacha and others vs. K.D.
Ganapathi and another [2011 AIR (SC) 1353] would
contend that, the application filed by the

¶22

3 cra109.13

¶23

applicants for examining five witnesses is without
stating relevance or purpose for which he wants to
examine five witnesses. Therefore, he submits
that, the Civil Revision Application deserves no
consideration.

¶24

3.The learned Counsel appearing for the
revision applicants realizing the position that,
the purpose is not mentioned in the application
for examination of five witnesses filed by the
applicants, seeks liberty to withdraw the Civil
Revision Application with further liberty to file
fresh application before the Wakf Tribunal,
Aurangabad for examining five witnesses mentioning
therein purpose/reasons for which the applicants
wish to examine them. The Counsel for the
applicants on instructions makes a statement that,
the applicants will not seek further liberty to

¶25

examine any other additional witness than five
witnesses for which the application will be filed.

¶26

4.In the light of submissions advanced

¶27

4 cra109.13

¶28

across the bar, the Civil Revision Application is

¶29

allowed to be withdrawn with further liberty to
the applicants to file fresh application before
the Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad stating therein,

¶30

purpose for which the applicants wish to examine
five witnesses. The Counsel for the applicants
submits that, such application will be filed
within two weeks from today. Upon filing such

¶31

application, Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad to consider
and decide the said application within four weeks
thereafter, on merits. It is made clear that,

¶32

this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the application and it is left for the

¶33

parties to agitate all possible contentions
available to them in law.

¶34

 [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶35

sut/Apr13

Kazi Hamidoddin Chiragoddin Kazi and Others v. Mohammad Salauddin Bahauddin Kazi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kazi Hamidoddin Chiragoddin Kazi and Others v. Mohammad Salauddin Bahauddin Kazi and Another

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

Jyoti Amol Shinde Vs Amol Arjun Shinde

Smt Bharati@Hira Rajendra Zhade and Anr. Vs Smt Sonabai Janardhan Zhade

M/S Rushi Dairy Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs Vikas Sahebrao Pagore and Others

Municipal Corporation of City of Jalgaon Vs Shrikant Singh, Secretary, Urban Development Department

Ramvilas Puranmal Mantri and Ors. Vs Shridhar Gangadhar Naik and Ors.

Manoharrao Gunwantrao Patil Vs Ganpati Malhari Koli and Ors.