Dismissed

M/S. J.M. Constructions v. Antoinette Gomes and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Sept 2016WP/8952/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined whether a Trial Judge's discretionary order directing a specific application to be decided before cross-examination warranted interference under Article 227. Finding no jurisdictional error, the Court disposed of the writ petition and directed the proceeding to be time-bound.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of. The Trial Judge directed to argue and dispose of the pending application by October 10, 2017, to expedite the cross-examination.

M/S. J.M. Constructions Vs Antoinette Gomes… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

512 WP 8952.17

Phjayani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 8952 OF 2017

¶6

M/s. J. M. Constructions ….Petitioner V/s. Antoinette Gomes & Ors. ….Respondents

¶7

Charles Desouza for the petitioner. Ranjana Parikh for the respondents.

¶8

CORAM : M.S. SONAK, J. DATE : 06^th September, 2017

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

. Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on production board.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

The operative portion of the impugned order below Exhibit – 318 in R.A.E. Suit No. 710/1152 of 2005 dated 06^th February, 2017 reads thus :-

¶13

“ i) Defendants are directed to argue on the application vide Exh.318 first before proceed to further cross-examination of D.W.2.

¶14

ii) Both the parties are directed to take note and comply. ”

¶15

The order is purely a discretionary order whereby the learned Trial Judge, in reference to the order made by this Court on 12^th August, 2016 has directed that the Application vide Exhibit – 318 be decided before the matter proceeds further cross-examination of

¶16

512 WP 8952.17

¶17

Phjayani 2

¶18

D.W.2. There is no jurisdictional error as such which warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

The learned counsel for the parties states that application at Exhibit – 318 is posted for hearing on 19^th September, 2017. If that be so, the learned Trial Judge is requested to proceed with the arguments on the said application on 19^th September, 2017 and thereafter, dispose of the said application in accordance with the law and on it own merits latest by 10^th October, 2017.

¶20

In case, the application at Exhibit-318 is disposed of, the Trial Judge to proceed to the stage of further cross-examination of D.W.2., so that there is no further delay in the matter .

¶21

In case, the application at Exhibit-318 is allowed, then naturally, the plaintiff will have to be recalled for further crossexamination. Further, since this is a matter which is required to be disposed of in a time bound manner as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Trial Judge should impress upon the parties to conclude examination / cross-examination with reasonable dispatch.

¶22

With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.

¶23

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

M/S. J.M. Constructions v. Antoinette Gomes and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. J.M. Constructions v. Antoinette Gomes 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

Shivaji Jagannath Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Mr. Imran Ibrahim Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Mr. Pushkaraj Shekherrao Indurkar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Cabinet Secretary and Ors.

Shri Khwajasaheb Sultan Patil Vs Shri Mustafa Babasaheb Sharikmasalat (Since Decd) by Lrs. and Anr.

Mr. Prakash Santu Randive Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Sadanand C. Manekar and Ors. Vs Sachin Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.