The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the trial Court's refusal to grant permission to adduce fresh evidence. The Court held the rejection was justified as no liberty was given for fresh evidence during remand, the application was filed belatedly, and no sufficient reason was provided.
No order as to costs.
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.
WP2080-13
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2080/2013
(RAVINDRA GOVINDRAO KAWALE & ANOTHER VERSUS HARIDAS KISAN MESHRAM)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
Court's or Judge's orders
Shri S.D. Sirpurkar, counsel for the petitioners.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 15, 2013.
By this petition, the petitioners impugn an order passed by the trial Court on 05.02.2013 rejecting an application filed by the petitioners for permission to tender oral evidence on record.
The petitioners are the original defendant nos.2 and 3 to the suit. The suit was decided by the trial Court and in the first appeal filed by the respondent no.1, the first appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial Court for deciding the same on merits after considering all the aspects stated in the judgment of the first appellate Court dated 23.12.2011. After the matter was remanded and the trial Court was directed to decide the suit within a period of six months, the petitioners filed an application for permission to adduce evidence of the legal heir of Smt.Shalini Pedgaonkar. The said application was, however, rejected by an order dated 05.02.2013.
On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners. The trial Court observed that though the learned District Judge remanded the matter to the trial Court, the parties were not
WP2080-13
2
granted liberty to tender fresh evidence. The trial Court further found that the application was also not filed immediately after the matter was remanded on 23.12.2011 and was filed as belatedly as on 17.01.2013 though the first appellate Court had directed the trial Court to decide the suit within a period of six months. The trial Court held that the application was made only with a view to fill up the lacuna in the case of the petitioners. Apart from the aforesaid reason, it appears that the petitioners have not stated any sufficient reason in the application for seeking permission to tender evidence of the legal heir of Smt.Shalini after the matter was remanded. The order is just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
APTE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial Court's order rejecting the application for permission to tender oral evidence on record.
Ravindra Govindrao Kawale
Another
Haridas Kisan Meshram
Vasanti A. Naik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
