Allowed

Bhanudas Eknath Jadhav and Others v. Anil Dilipkumar Patni and Others

Bombay HC17 Feb 2017WP/3341/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition allowing the challenge to an impugned order of the Trial Court which had rejected an application to examine additional witnesses in a civil suit regarding ancestral property ownership. The High Court set aside the impugned order and restored the application.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order set aside; application Exh.90 allowed; liberty granted to move an application for additional witnesses.

Bhanudas Eknath Jadhav and Others Vs Anil Dilipkumar Patni and Others — Bombay HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

wp3341.15

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3341 OF 2015

¶5

1. Bhanudas s/o. Eknath Jadhav .. Petitioners Age. 60 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. Fulmali Gali, Hanuman Chowk, Chikalthana, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.

¶6

2. Ambadas s/o. Eknath Jadhav Age. 52 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. As above.

¶7

3. Jagannath s/o. Eknath Jadhav Age. 48 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. As above.

¶8

4. Tulsiram s/o. Ekanth Jadhav

¶9

Age. 44 years, Occ. Agri., R/o. As above.

¶10

Versus

¶11

1. Anil s/o. Dilipkumar Patni

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

Age. Major, Occ. Not known R/o. Jalgaon Road, Opp. Garware Gate, Near Bharat Petrol Pump & Reliance Petrol Pump, N-7, CIDCO, Aurangabad.

¶14

2. Atul s/o. Dilipkumar Patni Age. Major, Occ. Not known, Near Bharat Petrol Pump & Reliance Petrol Pump, N-7, CIDCO, Aurangabad.

¶15

3. Sayyad Javed Ali s/o. Sayyad Ahemad Ali Age. Major, Occ. Not known R/o. Near Subhedari Guest House, Aurangabad.

¶16

	( 2 )	wp3341.15
`4.`	`Heirs of Mohammad Irfan s/o. Md. Sultan`
`i)`	`Saida Begum w/o. Mohammad Irfan` `Age. Major, occ. Not known,` `R/o. Nawa Mondha, Motikaranja,` `Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.`
`ii)`	`Mohammad Ahsan s/o. Md. Irfan` `Age. Major, occ. Not known,` `R/o. As above.`
`iii)`	`Shabana Md. Irfan`
	`Age. Major, occ. Not known,` `R/o. As above.`
`iv)`	`Mohammad Usman s/o. Mohammad Irfan` `Age. Major, occ. Not known,`
	`R/o. As above.`
`v)`	`Farzana Begum d/o. Mohammad Irfan` `Age. Major, occ. Not known,` `R/o. As above.`
`5.`	`Kadubai w/o. Bhanudas Taro` `Age. Major, Occ. Housewife,`
	`R/o. Karmad, Tq.& Dist. Aurangabad.`
`Mrs.`	`P.V. Langhe, Advocate for the petitioners.`
`None`	`for the respondents.`

¶17

CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE,J.
DATED :17.02.2017

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶19

1.Rule. Heard finally as per the notice issued
earlier for final disposal.

¶20

2.None for the respondents though duly served.

¶21

3.The impugned order dated 05.01.2015 is passed
upon consideration that the application vide Exh.90 does
not give any reason as to for what purpose the
petitioners wish to examine more witnesses. I think, the
impugned order is passed upon misconception of facts and
therefore the same is perverse. The application Exh.90
does disclose reason for which the plaintiffs want to
examine more witnesses. To this, their contention is
that the suit property is ancestral and they are lawful
owners of the property and are in its possession and as
the defendants have prepared false and forged documents
with intention to grab the property, they wish to bring
on record the reliable evidence, so that they can
discharge the burden of proof and help the Court in
resolving the controversies between the parties once for
all. This being the reason behind filing of the
application and also the fact that in the absence of the
advocate, the petitioners were helpless, I am of the view
that the Civil Judge ought to have allowed the
application vide Exh.90. Since, the order is perverse,
it deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶22

4.The writ petition is allowed with costs. The

¶23

impugned order is set aside. The application Exh. 90 is
allowed. The liberty is granted to the petitioners to
move another application before the Trial Court seeking
its leave to examine any person/s not named in the list
of witnesses as additional witness/es. If, such
application is filed, it shall be considered by the trial
Court in accordance with the law.

¶24

5.Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs.

¶25

snk/2017/FEB17/ wp3341.15

Bhanudas Eknath Jadhav and Others v. Anil Dilipkumar Patni and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanudas Eknath Jadhav and Others v. Anil Dilipkumar Patni and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankita Alok Agnihotri Vs Ramesh Natharam Ghodke Patil

Rameshwar Venkoba Kakade and Anr. Vs Smt Sidwabai Narsu Kakade

Anirudh Namdeo Dudile Vs Sopan Nivrutti Dudile and Others

Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Mustaq and Others Vs Shaikh Abdul Naseem Abdul Razzak and Others

Shashikala Suresh Gargade Vs Appa Baburao Sanap and Others

Ashrinath Natha Satre and Another Vs Vaishali Baban Satre and Others