This writ petition challenged an order allowing cross-examination of a plaintiff witness on limitation. The Single Judge upheld the trial court's decision, stating the defendant could discharge the burden of proving limitation bars by cross-examining the plaintiff.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
vks
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2290 OF 2018
Vimal Bhaskar Deo and ors … Petitioner V/s. Pen Municipal Council and ors … Respondents
Mr. Vaijanath P.Vaze, for the Petitioner. Mr. Rohit D. Joshi, for the Respondent No.2.
CORAM : DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE : 11TH APRIL, 2018.
P.C. :
1] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondent.
2] By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 7th December, 2017, passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag in R.C.S.NOo.270 of 2012, below exh.201.
3] Application at Exh,.201 was filed by the defendant No.2, who is respondent in this petition, for recalling plaintiff's witness Chandrashekhar Dev, for the purpose of cross examination, only in respect of the issue of limitation which was framed subsequently after his evidence was over.
4] The trial Court, vide its order, allowed the said application.
1/2
The grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the burden to prove that the suit is not within limitation was on the defendant and hence, he must examine himself. Without that, he cannot call the plaintiff's witness for cross examination. To substantiate his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Nagar Palika, Raisinghnagar -vs- Rameshwar lal and anr (2017) 9 SCC 618]; wherein it is held that the burden of proof as regards issue of limitation to prove that the suit is not within the limitation is on the defendant. However, in this respect, it has to be stated that the defendant can discharge the said burden of proof by cross examining plaintiff's witness, as it can be one of the modes to discharge the burden, especially here in the case, the issue of limitation was framed after the evidence of plaintiff was recorded. Thus, the defendant needs to be given an opportunity to cross examine plaintiff's witness and the trial Court has rightly restricted the cross examination only in respect of point of limitation. I do not find that the trial Court has committed any error in allowing such application.
5] The Writ Petition being without any merit, stands dismissed.
[DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a trial court commits error by allowing cross-examination of plaintiff witness only on issue of limitation framed after evidence.
Whether defendant can discharge burden of proof on limitation by cross-examining plaintiff witness.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nagar Palika, Raisinghnagar -vs- Rameshwar lal and anrReferred¶14
Nagar Palika, Raisinghnagar -vs- Rameshwar lal and anr (2017) 9 SCC 618 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vimal Bhaskar Deo and ors
Pen Municipal Council and ors
DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
