Allowed

Mahananda Kailas Survase v. Lata Vasant Gupte and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Mar 2013WP/450/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the court recalled an order of 'No Cross' against a petitioner added later in a suit, allowing a one-time opportunity to cross-examine witnesses but directed the petitioner to deposit costs of Rs. 3000.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders under Exhibits 104 and 114 were quashed. Application Exhibit 104 was allowed permitting the petitioner to cross-examine witnesses on deposit of Rs. 3000.

Mahananda Kailas Survase Vs Lata Vasant Gupte… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 W.P.450.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 450 OF 2013

¶4

Mahananda Kailas Survase
Age : 40 years, Occup. Household,
R/o Ashok Nagar,
Taluka and Dist. Beed...PETITIONER

¶5

 VERSUS

¶6

1. Lata Vasant Gupte Age: 30 years, Occup. Service R/o Kunnam Galli, Tal. and Dist Beed.

¶7

2. Vedanti Vasatn Gupte, Age 9 years, occup. Education

¶8

3. Sahil Vasant Gupte, Age 6 years, Occup. Education, Resp. NO. 2 & 3 minor through Guardian Respondent No.1.

¶9

4. Kamalbai Kisanrao Gupte, Age: Major, Occup. Agriculture, R/o Ayodhyangari, MIDC, Taluka & Dist. Beed.

¶10

5. Vishwanath @ Rajendra Kisanrao Gupte Age: Major Occup.: Agriculture, R/o Ayodhyangari, MIDC, Taluka & District Beed,

¶11

6. Ganpat Limbaji Gupte, Age: Major Occup. Agriculture, R/o Kunnam Galli, Tal and Dist. Beed.

¶12

7. Tulsabai Ganpati Gupte, Age: Major, Occup. Agriculture, R/o Kunnam Galli, Tal. and Dist. Beed.

¶13

2 W.P.450.13

¶14

8.Chanda Limbaji Dhole,
Age: 33 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Barshi Naka,
Taluka & District Beed. ...RESPONDENTS

¶15

...

¶16

 Shri P.V. Barde, Advocate for Petitioner
 Shri M.S. Shaikh, Advocate holding for
 Shri Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for R. No. 1

¶17

...

¶18

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

¶19

DATE : 20.03.2013

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶21

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

¶22

2. Application filed by the petitioner for recalling

¶23

the order dated 07.04.2012 and setting aside "No
Cross" order, is rejected.

¶24

3.Shri Barde, learned counsel for petitioner

¶25

submits that the Court on the same set of facts
allowed the application filed by defendant no. 6,
however, rejected the application of the present
petitioner. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed.
After filing of the written statement, immediately
application Exhibit 104 was filed, it was rejected.

¶26

3 W.P.450.13

¶27

Subsequently, application Exhibit 114 was filed to
recall the order of "No cross". According to the
learned counsel, there is no inordinate delay on the
part of petitioner in filing the application.

¶28

4.Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for respondents
plaintiffs supports the order and submits that the
trial Court has considered all relevant facts. No
grounds are mentioned for recalling the order below
Exhibit 104. Even there is gap of six months in
filing said application. According to the learned
counsel, there is deliberate act of delaying the
matter.

¶29

5.It appears that the petitioner who is added as
party, subsequently, has filed her written statement
on or about 12.02.2009. No doubt, petitioner could
have given application earlier for crossexamination
of the plaintiff. However, considering the facts that
the petitioner was added subsequently, I am inclined
to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner,
however, petitioner also deserves to be mulct with
costs.

¶30

4 W.P.450.13

¶31

6. In light of above, I pass following order:

¶32

(i) The impugned order below Exhibits 104 and 114 are quashed and set aside. Application Exhibit 104 is allowed.

¶33

(ii) The petitioner is at liberty to cross
examine the plaintiff and his witnesses on
condition that petitioner pays cost of
Rs. 3000/ to respondent no. 1 within
period of three weeks from today.

¶34

(iii) If cost is deposited in the trial
Court, respondent no. 1 is entitled to
withdraw the same.

¶35

7. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶36

Sd/

¶37

[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶38

MTK

Mahananda Kailas Survase v. Lata Vasant Gupte and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahananda Kailas Survase v. Lata Vasant Gupte and Ors.

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

Prakash Rambhau Pawar and Ors. Vs Dharma Ramdhan Chavan

Ganpati Rangnath Khose Vs Sarangdhar Bapurao Khose and Another

Vasantrao Shankarrao Amrutkar Vs Kishor Jagannath Kasodekar and Others

Murlidhar Vedu Dusane Vs Sanmukhlal Govardhandas Shah

Crescent Entertainment and Tourism Ltd. Thr. Its Director Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

United India Insurence Co. Ltd. Vs Yogesh Gorakhlal Jaiswal Thr Spl. P.A. Shailesh Gorakhlal