Allowed

Nisha Sadashiv Rohom v. Raosaheb Baburao Katore and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Jan 2013WP/155/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the trial court's rejection of an application to file an affidavit for examination-in-chief, the Bombay High Court set aside the impugned order. The court allowed the petitioner to lead evidence by affidavit on a fixed date and directed swift disposal of the main suit.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejected under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC set aside; petitioner permitted to file affidavit examination-in-chief on 10.1.2013.

Nisha Sadashiv Rohom Vs Raosaheb Baburao Katore and… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

¶3

BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.155 OF 2013.

¶6

Sou.Nisha Sadashiv Rohom,
Age 48 years, Occ.Household,
R/o Sakori, Taluka Rahata,
District Ahmednagar.

¶7

... Petitioner.

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. Raosaheb Baburao Katore,
Age 52 years, Occ.Agriculture,

¶10

2. Shivaji Baburao Katore,
Age 49 years, Occ.Agriculture,

¶11

3. Vijay Baburao Katore,
Age 45 years, Occ.Agriculture,

¶12

4. Smt.Gitabai W/o Baburao Katore,
Age 75 years, Occ.Agriculture,

¶13

Nos.1 to 4 R/o Nimgaon Korhale,
Tq.Rahata, Dist.Ahmednagar.

¶14

5. Sou. Padma Vishnu Dighe,
Age 50 years, Occ.Household,
R/oHanmantgaon,Taluka Rahata,
Dist.Ahmednagar.

¶15

6. Smt.Surekha Shamrao Kadam,
Age 40 years, Occ.Household,
R/o Devlali Pravara, Lakh Rasta,
Taluka Rahuri, Dist.Ahmednagar.

¶16

7. Bhausaheb Baburao Katore,
Age 55 years, Occ.Agriculture,

¶17

¶18

R/o Nimgaon Korhale, Taluka
Rahata, Dist.Ahmednagar.

¶19

8. Sou. Suman Ramdas Gaware,
Age 45 years, Occ.Household,
R/o Shirasgaon, Taluka Shrirampur,
Dist.Ahmednagar. ... Respondents.

¶20

Mr.V.R.Dhorde, advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for the Respondent No.7.

¶21

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶22

 Date : 09.01.2013.

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶24

1.Heard.

¶25

2. Leave to amend.

¶26

3.Mr.Hon, learned counsel appears for

¶27

Respondent Nos.7 and 8.

¶28

4.Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are defendants,
as such are not necessary for deciding this
petition.

¶29

5.Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With

¶30

the consent of the parties, the petition is taken

¶31

¶32

up for final hearing.

¶33

6.The petitioner is defendant No.7. After
the evidence of the plaintiff and other
defendants was closed, the petitioner filed
application for permitting him to lead evidence
by affidavit. The plaintiff did not object for
the same. However, the Court rejected the
application. Aggrieved thereby, the present
petition.

¶34

7.Mr.Dhorde, learned counsel submits that
the petitioner has right to adduce evidence by
way of affidavit in view of Order 18 Rule 4 of
the C.P.C. The Court could not have rejected the
same. Even the examination-in-Chief by way of
affidavit was ready.

¶35

8.Mr.Hon, learned counsel submits that to
delay the proceedings, the petitioner had filed
the said application. Even the petitioner had
not objected to the said application with a view
to see that the matter is decided expeditiously.
The petitioner is trying to prolong the matter.

¶36

¶37

Twice extension has been granted for deciding the
suit by this Court.

¶38

9.In fact, the application seeking

¶39

permission to file examination-in-Chief by
affidavit was unwarranted. The petitioner should
have straightway filed his examination-in-Chief
by affidavit. The Court while rejecting the said
application has observed that the application
does not disclose any substance and meaning.

¶40

10.It is submitted that the date in the
trial court is fixed on 10.1.2013. The
petitioner may lead his examination-in-Chief by
way of affidavit tomorrow.

¶41

11.In light of that, the impugned order is
set aside and the petitioner shall file his Chief
by way of affidavit on 10.1.2013.

¶42

12.The Court will deal with the matter
expeditiously as directed by this Court.

¶43

13.Ruleaccordinglymadeabsolute.

¶44

¶45

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

14.Parties to act on authenticated copy.

¶47

 (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶48

asp/office/wp155.13

Nisha Sadashiv Rohom v. Raosaheb Baburao Katore and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisha Sadashiv Rohom v. Raosaheb Baburao Katore and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Parveen Nurrodin Siddhiqui Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shaikh Mohammad Shaik Ismiel and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vinod Rajaram Zope. Vs Dhanraj Pandurang Mahajan (L.Rs.)Yuraj and Others.

Shaikh Musa Shaikh Umar and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Deepak Laxman Patil Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Anil Shahaji Bhutekar Vs the Addl. Commissioner, Abad Div. and Ors.