Allowed

Dorothy Ravindra Pawar v. John David Gonsalves

Bombay HC4 Jan 2016APP/473/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court set aside a single judge's order that barred the plaintiff from leading her own evidence in a testamentary suit. The court held that the judge could instead evaluate the probative value of the evidence at the final hearing during cross-examination issues.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside; the plaintiff is permitted to lead her own evidence.

Dorothy Ravindra Pawar Vs John David Gonsalves — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2016)

( APP 473 of 2015)

vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

APPEAL No. 473 OF 2015 IN TESTAMENTARY SUIT No. 49 OF 1999 IN

¶6

TESTAMENTARY PETITION No. 26 OF 1999

¶7

WITH NOTICE OF MOTION No. 2090 OF 2015

¶8

¶9

APPEAL No. 473 OF 2015 IN

¶10

TESTAMENTARY PETITION No. 26 OF 1999

¶11

Mrs. Dorothy Ravindra Pawar ...Appellant Vs. John David Gonsalves ...Respondent

¶12

¶13

Mr.Clive D'Souza for Appellant Mr.Ashok Tajane for Respondent No.1 ***********

¶14

CORAM : V. M. KANADE

¶15

REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

¶16

DATE : JANUARY 04, 2016

¶17

P.C. :

¶18

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and the learned counsel for the Respondent.

¶19

The Appellant is aggrieved by an order passed by the Learned Single Judge dated 10^th August, 2015. By the said order, the Learned Single Judge has not permitted the plaintiff to lead her own evidence on the grounds mentioned in the said order.

1/2

( APP 473 of 2015)

We have perused the impugned order. We are satisfied that the reasons given by the Learned Single Judge for not permitting the plaintiff to lead her evidence are sufficient for passing the impugned order. The Learned Single Judge has observed that the plaintiff was prompting the witness with the answers while cross examination was going on. The Learned Single Judge, therefore, has observed that the conduct of the Plaintiff is simply inexcusable and on that ground the Learned Single Judge has not permitted the plaintiff to lead her own evidence.

¶24

In our view, since the Learned Single Judge could have noted the conduct of the Plaintiff while appreciating the evidence of that witness and then decided what is the probative value of the evidence given by the witness. Impugned order, therefore, is set aside. The plaintiff is permitted to lead her own evidence. It is clarified that it is open for the Learned Single Judge to decide at the time of final hearing of the suit to what extent reliance should be placed on the evidence given by the plaintiff's witness Sitaram Sonu Mane. Plaintiff is permitted to lead her own evidence. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶25

Notice of motion does not survive and is also disposed of. Hearing of the suit is expedited.

¶26

[REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶27

Vaishali Tikam

¶28

2/2

Dorothy Ravindra Pawar v. John David Gonsalves

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dorothy Ravindra Pawar v. John David Gonsalves

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

Vineet Dhanda Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rajesh Suresh Chindrarkar and Anr. Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

D B Realty Ltd. and Another Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Another

Conscious Citizen Forum Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Janardhan Atmaram Patil Auction Purchaser Vs Icici Bank Ltd. and 10 Ors.

Dr.Bakul Chandulal Mehta Vs Yogesh C. Maniar and Anr.