Allowed

Kachru Tukaram Alanjkar v. Eknath Vishwanath Jadhav and Others

Bombay HC3 Apr 2013WP/1645/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition where the petitioner, in a suit for injunction, sought an opportunity to adduce evidence previously closed by the trial court. The Court quashed the closure order and the application to set it aside, permitted the petitioner to adduce evidence, and imposed costs on the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order closing evidence and the application to set it aside; allowed the application to adduce evidence on condition of paying Rs. 3,000 costs.

Kachru Tukaram Alanjkar Vs Eknath Vishwanath… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 wp 1645.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1645 OF 2013

¶4

Kachru S/o Tukaram Alanjkar, Age : 52 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Shahapur, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Eknath S/o Vishwanath Jadhav, Age : 51 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Sahapur, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶7

Pushpabai W/o Eknath Jadhav, Age : 46 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Sahapur, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶8

Ganesh S/o Eknath Jadhav, Age : 26 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o Sahapur, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. .. Respondents

¶9

Shri C. V. Dharurkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. A. Ingale, Advocate for Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 03RD APRIL, 2013.

¶11

2 wp 1645.13

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶13

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing.

¶14

The present petitioner/plaintiff has filed suit for injunction. The plaintiff led his evidence. His cross examination was completed. Thereafter, the plaintiff failed to adduce further evidence. As such, the right to adduce further evidence was closed. The plaintiff filed an application Exhibit 69 for setting aside the order closing his evidence. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby the present petition.

¶15

Shri Dharurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was not intending to prolong the matter. The adjournment application was given and the Court had granted last chance. In fact, the Court could not have proceeded further as the respondent was directed to pay cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioner, but the same was not deposited. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner be given an opportunity to adduce the evidence.

¶16

Shri Ingale, the learned counsel for the respondents

¶17

3 wp 1645.13

¶18

supports the order and submits that after the cross examination of petitioner was over, four times the matter was adjourned. No reasons are given by the plaintiff in the application for not adducing the evidence. Even list of witnesses is not given. According to the learned counsel, the defendants have also filed their examination in chief.

¶19

With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the order.

¶20

The Court on 24.08.2012 has passed an order closing the evidence of plaintiff and thereafter, the plaintiff on 07.11.2012 filed an application for setting aside the said order and allowing the plaintiff to adduce the evidence. The delay was not inordinate in filing the application.

¶21

Considering the nature of the dispute, I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to the plaintiff to adduce the evidence. However, the plaintiff deserves to be mulct with cost. As such I pass the following order.

¶22

The order dated 24.08.2012 passed below Exhibit 1 and the

¶23

4 wp 1645.13

¶24

order dated 19.12.2012 passed below Exhibit 69 are quashed and set aside and application Exhibit 69 is allowed on condition that the petitioner/plaintiff pays cost of Rs. 3,000/- to the respondents i. e. Rs. 1,000/- to each respondent within a period of three weeks from today. If the cost is deposited in the Trial Court, the respondents are entitled to withdraw the same. The parties shall co-operate in expeditious disposal of the suit. The Trial Court shall decide the suit expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months.

¶25

Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms.

¶26

Sd/[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶27

bsb/April 13

Kachru Tukaram Alanjkar v. Eknath Vishwanath Jadhav and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kachru Tukaram Alanjkar v. Eknath Vishwanath Jadhav and Others

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

Ushabai Ganesh Mane and Ors. Vs Ganesh Sheshrao Mane and Ors.

Kashinath Appasaheb Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dr. Dilip Prabhakarrao Kharwadkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rama Sakharam Muke, Died Thr. L.Rs. Chandrabhaga and Anr. Vs Chaburao Dashrath Kale and Ors.

Bhimshankar Dattatraya Deshmane and Ors. Vs Dwarkadas Shrinivas Baheti Died and Ors.

Bashirkhan Hussainkhan Vs Sarifkhan Hussain Khan and Another