Writ petition challenging the order rejecting an application for recall of a witness. The court held that with evidence recorded and the trial set for arguments, no case for interference was made out against the trial court's order. The writ petition was dismissed.
The Writ petition was dismissed.
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.
wp-3372.13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3372 OF 2013
Sitaram Bhagaji Unhavane and anr. : Petitioners. Versus Dr.Sau. Pradnya Vikram Vaidya : Respondent.
Mr. Ajay S Gadkari for the Petitioners. Ms. Jyoti Pandey and Ms. Sandhya Waghchoure for the Respondent.
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 08th April 2013
P.C.
1 The Application for recall of a witness filed by the original Defendant for proving four documents mentioned in Exhibit 50 which is rejected by the impugned order dated 9/11/2012 is taken exception to by way of the above Writ Petition.
2 The trial is at the stage where the suit is set down for arguments. The recording of evidence being already complete. In my view, in the said fact situation the order rejecting the application for recall of the witness cannot be taken exception to. No case for interference is therefore made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
[R.M.SAVANT, J]
1 of 1
lgc
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned order rejecting the application for recall of a witness.
Whether any case for interference is made out when the trial is at the stage for arguments and evidence is already recorded.
Sitaram Bhagaji Unhavane and anr.
Dr.Sau. Pradnya Vikram Vaidya
R. M. Savant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
