Allowed

Vinod Bhagchand Mandlecha and Another v. Hukumchand Ganeshlal Mandlecha and Others

Bombay HC10 Jul 2017WP/4971/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order of the Joint Civil Judge, Aurangabad, which allowed an application to examine medical officers without hearing the petitioners and without giving reasons. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad quashed the order and directed the trial judge to reconsider the application with reasons.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 30th March 2017 permitting examination of medical officers. Directed the learned trial judge to reconsider the application, permit defendants to file say, and decide with reaso

Vinod Bhagchand Mandlecha and Another Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

W.P.No.4971/2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4971 OF 2017

¶5

Vinod s/o Bhagchand Mandlecha, Age 47 years, Occu. Business and Agriculture

¶6

Pratk Vinod Mandlecha, Age 26 years, Occu. Business, Both R/o Sillod, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad ..Petitioners Versus

¶7

Hukumchand s/o Ganeshlal Mandlecha, Age 63 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Sillod, District Aurangabad

¶8

Sadhana w/o Vinod Mandlecha, Age 41 years, Occu. Household, Both R/o 5, Jalna road, Sillod, District Aurangabad

¶9

ShaheenBegum w/o Sayyed Khan Pathan, Age 29 years, Occu. Household, R/o Shivaji Chowk, Sillod, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad ..Respondent

¶10

Mr B.R. Warma, Advocate for petitioners Mr A.D. Kasliwal, Advocate for respondent no.1

¶11

CORAM : A.M. DHAVALE, J.

¶12

DATE : 10^th July 2017

¶13

PER COURT

¶14

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

¶15

Counsel for respondents no.3 to 11 is absent.

¶16

The respondents as original plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.151

¶17

of 2015 filed application Exh.40 before the Joint Civil Judge, Senior

¶18

W.P.No.4971/2017

¶19

¶20

Division, Aurangabad, for permission to examine three Medical Officers before placing his own evidence. Their application Exh.40 dated 8^th March 2017 was adjourned to 30^th March 2017. On that day, no say was filed by the defendants – petitioners herein. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that Counsel for the petitioners came late. Meanwhile, the impugned order dated 30^th March 2017 was passed and the application was allowed.

¶21

Apart from the fact that it was allowed without hearing the defendants, It also suffers from lack of reasons for allowing such application. The learned Advocate ageed for rehearing of application Exh.40.

¶22

Considering the facts, the impugned order dated 30^th March 2017 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad on application Exh.40 is quashed and the learned trial Judge is directed to reconsider the application, permit the defendants to file say and after hearing the parties, decide the same with reasons within a period of fifteen days from the receipt of this order.

¶23

Rule made absolute in above terms.

¶24

( A.M. DHAVALE, J.)

¶25

vvr

Vinod Bhagchand Mandlecha and Another v. Hukumchand Ganeshlal Mandlecha and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Bhagchand Mandlecha and Another v. Hukumchand Ganeshlal Mandlecha and Others

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

Malanbai Pandurang Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dilip Madhavrao Shinde Vs Shivaji Ramkishan Shinde

Shantilal Zumberlal Baldota and Others Vs Deepak Chandmal Varma