Dismissed

Shasikala Vilas Kasture and Ors. v. Chitra Prashant Kasture and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Feb 2013WP/1190/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding a civil suit, the Court rejected an application to summon a Post Master due to lack of purpose and omission from the witness list, but allowed the application to summon two Bank Managers. The Court directed a fresh application for the Post Master.

What did the court decide?

Witness summons directed to two Bank Managers; separate application required for Post Master summons.

Shasikala Vilas Kasture and Ors. Vs Chitra… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

W.P. No.1190/2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1190 OF 2013

¶5

1.	Shashikala w/o Vilas Kasture, Age 75 years, Occ. Household
2.	Kanchankumar s/o Vilas Kasture, Age 45 years, Occ. Business,
3.	Rajni w/o Gajendra Kandarkar, Age 38 years, Occ. Household
	All R/o Kasture Niwas, Laxmi Colony, Latur. ...	PETITIONERS
	VERSUS
1.	Smt. Chitra w/o Prashant Kasutre, Age 32 years, Occ. Household,
2.	Prajwal s/o Prashant Kasture, Age 10 years, minor.
3.	Ku. Prerna d/o Prashant Kasture, Age 7 years, minor.
	Nos.2 & 3 minors, u/g of their natural mother Petitioner No.1 Smt. Chitra w/o Prashant Kasture,
	All R/o Kasture Niwas, Laxmi Colony, Latur, now at - Flat No.2, Building No.2,
	Chandari Complex, Ambegaon (Bk.),
	Tq. Haveli, District Pune. ...	RESPONDENTS

¶6

W.P. No.1190/2013

¶7

¶8

Shri P.R. Tandale, Advocate for petitioners Shri V.D. Sapkal, Advocate holding for Shri L.C. Patil, Advocate for respondents

¶9

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

¶10

DATED: 18th February, 2013.

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of parties.

¶13

The application Exh. 108 is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition.

¶14

Shri Sapkal, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the petition on the ground that no reasons are given in the application for examining the Post Master. Even the name of the Post Master is not given in the list of witnesses. The learned counsel submits that the Court has forfeited the right of the petitioner to adduce the evidence and even subsequently allowed the petitioners to lead evidence subject to cost of Rs.500/-. The learned counsel contends that, even when the application was kept for hearing, no one remained present. This shows the negligent manner in which the proceedings are being prosecuted.

¶15

W.P. No.1190/2013

¶16

¶17

Shri Tandale, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the witnesses are Government servants and as such, they do not remain present without the Court summons. The learned counsel further contends that the Post Master is required to be examined for purpose of referring the investments as are detailed in the will produced by the plaintiff.

¶18

Heard learned counsel. It appears that, the defendant was granted opportunity to adduce evidence even after her right was forfeited. The Court observed that the defendant is prolonging the matter. However. vide order dated 5.12.2012 below Exh.105, the Court has allowed the application subject to costs of Rs.500/and directed the defendant to keep these witnesses present, failing which the suit would be posted to its original position. Thereafter the instant application has been filed at Exhibit 108, stating that the witness summons are required to be issued and these witnesses, the independent persons, would not remain present without Court summons.

¶19

As far as the witnesses of Bank are concerned i.e. Bank Manager, L.D.C.C. Bank, Kapad Line, Latur and Manager, L.D.C.C. Bank, Bhagya Nagar, Latur, their names were cited as witnesses in the list of witnesses. They being independent witnesses and employees of the Bank, naturally would not appear without the witness summons. As far as the question of issuing witness summons to Postmaster is concerned, his name is not included in the list of witnesses nor the application even spells out the purpose

W.P. No.1190/2013

for his examination.

In the result, I pass the following order :

¶24

Application Exh. 108 is allowed to the extent of issuing witness summons to the Manager of L.D.C.C. Bank, Kapad Line Branch, Latur and Manager, L.D.C.C. Bank, Bhagya Nagar Branch, Latur. The Court shall issue witness summons to the said witnesses.

¶25

With regard to the witness summons to the Post Master of Ram Nagar, Latur, the petitioner may make a separate application, giving details for the purpose for which he wants to examine the said witness, which application the Court would consider on its own merits.

¶26

Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.

¶27

(S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Shasikala Vilas Kasture and Ors. v. Chitra Prashant Kasture and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shasikala Vilas Kasture and Ors. v. Chitra Prashant Kasture and Ors.

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

Narayan Laxman Dubale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Meenabai Babanrao Sukre and Ors. Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Tukaram Appa Mirge Vs the Spl..Land Acquisition Officer and Ors.

Deelip Shankar Padmar Vs Naval Dashrath Patil and Anr.

Govind Tukaram Kshirsagar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Madhukar Ramrao Gadhe and Others Vs Sadashiv Bhagwantrao Gadhe and Others