Defendant summoned challenged closure of evidence order citing age and ill health; court recalled closure permitting evidence led.
Recalled order closing evidence of defendant no.1 and permitted him to lead evidence.
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.
kvm
1/3
47-CST45.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
T. & I. J.
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 45 OF 2014 IN PETITION NO. 70 OF 2003
| Trivenibai Vanmalidas Sanghvi | ….. Deceased |
|---|---|
| Lalitkumar Vanmalidas Sanghavi | ….. Applicant |
| IN THE MATTER BETWEEN | |
| Lalitkumar Vanmalidas Sanghavi VERSUS |
….. Petitioner |
Harishandas V.Sanghavi & Ors. ….. Respondents/ Defendants
Mr.Makrand Bakore for the Applicant in CST and for Defendant no.1.
Ms.Shesla Sheth, i/b. FZB & Associates for Plaintiff.
Mr.Rupesh Lanjekar, i/b. Mr.Atul Damle for Defendant No.2.
Mr.Anil Chavan, i/b. N.N.Vaishnava for Defendant No.3.
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATED : 7th APRIL, 2014
P.C .
By this chamber summons filed by the defendant no.1, defendant no.1 seeks that order dated 20th January, 2014 passed by this court closing the evidence of defendant no.1 be recalled and seeks permission to lead evidence before the Court Commissioner and also seeks condonation of delay in filing this chamber summons. Learned counsel appearing for defendant no.1 submits that defendant no.1 is 87 years old and does not keep good health. During the period when the
kvm
2/3
47-CST45.14
Court Commissioner had fixed meetings as described in paragraph (6) of the affidavit in support, he was not keeping good health and could not remain present before the learned Court Commissioner to depose. Reliance is placed on the doctor certificate dated 26th February, 2014 stating that the defendant no.1 requires assistance of a person for walking and standing. It is submitted that defendant no.1 has already filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and only in view of his ill health, he was not able to appear before the Court Commissioner. Such absence was not intentional or deliberate. Evidence of defendant no.2 is presently underway before the Court Commissioner.
kvm
3/3
47-CST45.14
defendant no.1 would not seek any unnecessary adjournment before the Court Commissioner. Statement is accepted.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the closure of evidence can be recalled based on medical grounds?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Lalitkumar Vanmalidas Sanghavi
Harishandas V. Sanghavi & Ors.
Trivenibai Vanmalidas Sanghvi
R.D. DHANUKA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
