Disposed

Ambegaon Taluka Sheti Utpadak and Vitarak Sangh, through Managing Committee Member and Treasurer v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Apr 2013WP/3146/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court treated a writ petition arising from the rejection of an objection against filing an affidavit of evidence. The court directed the trial court to permit cross-examination of the witness and set the threshold for calling additional witnesses under Order 16 Rule 3 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with directions to allow cross-examination and determine additional witness applications under Order 16 Rule 3 CPC.

Ambegaon Taluka Sheti Utpadak and Vitarak… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

wp.3146-2013.sxw

acd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3146 OF 2013

¶6

Ambegaon Taluka Sheti Utpadak & Vitarak Sangh . (Through its Managing Committee Member and Treasurer. ) Vs.

¶7

..Petitioner.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶9

...Respondents.

¶10

Mr. P.J. Thorat, for the Petitioner. Mr. N.N. Bhadrashete, for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶11

CORAM: R.M. SAVANT, J.

¶12

DATE : 17^th April, 2013.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1 The writ jurisdiction of this court is invoked against the order dated 24.1.2013 passed by the learned 4^th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane by which order the application filed by the petitioner-

¶15

plaintiff objecting to the affidavit of evidence filed in respect of a witness of the defendant was rejected.

¶16

¶17

wp.3146-2013.sxw

¶18

2 It appears that by order dated 26.9.2012 passed on application

¶19

Exhibit-49, the defendant was permitted to file documents. However, the defendant filed affidavit of evidence of the witness through whom the said documents were produced. The filing of the affidavit of evidence was objected to on behalf of the plaintiff on the ground that what was permitted was only production of documents and not filing of any evidence. The trial court by the impugned order has allowed the filing of the affidavit of evidence of the said witness of the defendant on the ground that an opportunity should be given to the parties to dispose of the matter on merits and therefore observed that the defendant can examine the witness.

¶20

3 Since the trial court has permitted the said course of action, in my view, it would also be necessary for the plaintiff to be allowed to cross examine the said witness of the defendant. The plaintiff would accordingly be entitled to cross examine the said witness.

¶21

4 In the event any other witness is sought to be examined by the defendant, it would have to file an application for the same and the trial court would have to consider the said application on the touchstone of

¶22

Order 16 Rule (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶23

¶24

wp.3146-2013.sxw

¶25

5 With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶26

(R.M. SAVANT, J.)

Ambegaon Taluka Sheti Utpadak and Vitarak Sangh, through Managing Committee Member and Treasurer v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambegaon Taluka Sheti Utpadak and Vitarak Sangh, through Managing Committee Member and Treasurer v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Deepak Ramesh Mehta Vs Vasudeo Kishan Kadam

Sou. Kamalabai Mahadeo Mirgane Vs Shri. Gokuldas Ambadas Shelake and Anr.

Shri. Govind Genu Kalokhe Vs Shri. Ramdas Tukaram Kalohe and Anr.

Bhagwan Gajanan Kokre and Anr. Vs Maruti Ramchandra Kokre and Ors.

Mr. Vishwajeet Hanamantrao Pisal Vs Hindustan Sugars Ltd, through Bhushan Sudhakar Salunke and Ors.

Nilgiri Gardens Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, through Chairman / Secretary and Ors. Vs Parsik Paradise Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, through Secretary Chairman and Ors.