Allowed

Baburao Daulatrao More v. Vasant Madhavrao Pawar

Bombay HC19 Jan 2015WP/1285/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the trial court's orders rejecting the petitioner's applications for adjournment to produce witnesses and to submit the list of witnesses, holding that the court can extend the time limit under CPC. The orders were quashed subject to payment of security costs of Rs. 3000 to the trial court within two weeks as a condition precedent to further p

What did the court decide?

The trial court order dated 06/12/2013 and orders dated 28/01/2014 were set aside, allowing the petitioner to proceed with recording evidence subject to paying Rs. 3000 security to the trial court wit

Baburao Daulatrao More Vs Vasant Madhavrao Pawar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1285.14wp

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1285 OF 2014

¶5

Baburao s/o Daulatrao More, Age: 61 years, Occ: Agril, R/o. Htkyal, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded. ...Petitioner

¶6

versus Vasant s/o Madhavrao Pawar, Age: 54 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Htkyal, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded. ...Respondent

¶7

Mr. Amit A. Mukhedkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent.

¶8

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

¶9

DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2015

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

. Present petitioner-plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 76

¶12

of 2007 for declaration of ownership, possession and perpetual injunction. After evidence in the suit has begun, the evidence of witness No. 2 of the plaintiff was over. The plaintiff failed to produce third witness, which has prompted learned trial Court to pass the order on his application for adjournment on 06/12/2013, rejecting the said application for adjournment.

¶13

1285.14wp -2-

¶14

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the fact that his right to lead evidence was also foreclosed by virtue of impugned order dated 28/01/2014. As such, present writ petition.

¶15

Mr. Gaikwad, learned Counsel for the respondent has invited my attention to the provisions of Order 16 of Code of Civil Procedure so as to canvass that it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to furnish list of witnesses within period of 15 days from the date of framing of issues, which the petitioner has failed. He further urged that it was the duty of the petitioner to come out with specific case while seeking adjournment. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out.

¶16

Having perused the impugned order dated 28/01/2014, it is noticed that by the said order, learned trial Court has rejected both the applications Exhibit-51 and 53 preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff, wherein he has sought permission of the Court to set aside the order passed below Exhibit-48 i.e. the order whereby trial Court has rejected the application for grant of adjournment for production of witnesses. The another application which is rejected by learned trial Court i.e. Exhibit-53 is in relation to list of witnesses, which is sought to be produced by the petitioner before the Court. It is stated in the

¶17

1285.14wp -3-

¶18

said application by the petitioner that he has produced list of witnesses on earlier occasion, however, same could not be traced out on record.

¶19

It appears that the suit is at the stage of recording of

¶20

evidence.

¶21

In my opinion, though Rule-1 of Order 16 of Code of Civil Procedure mandates the plaintiff to file list of witnesses within 15 days from the date of settlement of issues, the said period can be extended by learned Court upon appropriate reasons being disclosed to that effect.

¶22

In the present case, as is noticed that the plaintiff has come out with the case that he has placed on record the list of witnesses within time stipulated i.e., within 15 days from the date of settlement of issues, however, same cannot be placed on record.

¶23

Having regard to the reasons recorded and in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate that the petitioner be given chance to proceed further for recording evidence. In that view of the

¶24

matter, the order dated 06/12/2013 passed below Exhibit-48, and order dated 28/01/2014 passed below Exhibits-51 and 53 are hereby

¶25

1285.14wp

¶26

set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3000/- (Rs. Three thousand only) to be paid within period of two weeks before trial Court. Payment of cost is condition precedent.

¶27

The writ petition stands disposed of, in above terms.

¶28

[ N.W. SAMBRE, J. ]

¶29

Tupe/19.01.15

Baburao Daulatrao More v. Vasant Madhavrao Pawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baburao Daulatrao More v. Vasant Madhavrao Pawar

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

Satwaji Gyanba Munde Vs Anjanabai Eknath Gite and Others

Mohammad Sk. Haneef and Others Vs Madhukar Asaram Tribhuwan and Others

Sadashiv Ramkrishna Pathak Died Lrs and Ors. Vs Vijaya Devidas Upasani and Anr.

Sanjay Ramdas Jape and Others Vs Parighabai Ramdas Jape and Others

Chandrakant Ramdas Jape Vs Ashok Ramdas Jape and Others

Vhb Life Sciences Ltd. Thr. Its Authorised Officer Vs Dilip Chimanrao Suryawanshi