Dismissed

Dr. Devyani S.Lathi, through C.A. Holder v. Shrikrishna Prabhakar Chitale and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Mar 2018WP/3267/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner challenged the trial court's refusal to permit re-opening of evidence under Section 151 of the CPC and inherent powers after a lapse of 17 years from the filing of suit.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed, upholding the Trial Court's rejection of the application to reopen evidence.

Dr. Devyani S.Lathi, through C.A. Holder Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

Dixit

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3267 OF 2018

¶4

Dr. Devyani S. Lathi V/s.

¶5

.… Petitioner

¶6

Shrikrishna Prabhakar Chitale & Ors. …. Respondents

¶7

Mr. Vaibhav P. Patankar for the Petitioner.

¶8

None for the Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

¶10

DATE : 26 TH MARCH, 2018.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard Mr. Patankar, learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶13

By this Writ Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

¶14

India, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 30^th January 2018 passed by the 16^th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, below the application filed at “Exhibit-347”.

¶15

The said application was filed by the Petitioner seeking permission for re-opening of evidence under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶16

1/3

¶17

WP-3267-18.doc

¶18

The Petitioner herein is the Original Plaintiff. According to her, she got some true copies of the Commencement Certificate, Completion Certificate and Sanctioned Plan in respect of the suit property, after the entire case was closed and kept for the cross-examination of Respondent No.1 – Defendant No.1. According to her contention, all these documents are the certified copies of the public record and hence, it was necessary for the Trial Court to re-open her evidence to consider these documents.

¶19

However, the perusal of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court clearly goes to show that, in the present case, the Suit was filed in the year 2000; issues were framed on 19^th August 2003 and Petitioner has filed her affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief on 17^th January 2007. Her cross-examination was completed on 9^th February 2007. She closed her evidence, after seven years, by filing 'pursis' at “Exhibit-274” on 4^th January 2014. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 has filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief on 20^th June 2015. Further examinationin-chief was recorded on 17^th February 2017. His cross-examination was started on 27^th September 2017. It continued on 7^th October 2017. “No Cross-examination” order was also passed thereafter, as the Petitioner failed to conduct cross-examination. That order was passed on 21^st November 2017. It came to be set aside on 30^th November 2017. Further cross-examination was recorded on 14^th December 2017. It was deferred on the Petitioner's application at “Exhibit-342” and at this stage, after a

¶20

2/3

¶21

WP-3267-18.doc

¶22

lapse of about 17 years from the filing of the Suit and 10 years from the commencement of evidence, now the Petitioner wants to re-open the evidence for leading further evidence and that too, by exercising its inherent powers by the Trial Court.

¶23

It is pertinent to note that, the hearing of the Suit was expedited, in view of the orders passed below “Exhibit-1” on 18^th July 2005, 28^th June, 2006 and 12^th January 2007. If despite that, the Petitioner has not remained diligent and at the fag-end of the trial, after seeking numerous opportunities and adjournments, if she is filing this application and that too, without showing any specific provision of law, but calling upon the Trial Court to re-open her entire evidence by invoking its own inherent powers, then, in my considered opinion, the Trial Court has rightly rejected such application and no interference is warranted therein in the writ jurisdiction of this Court on any count.

¶24

Writ Petition, therefore, stands dismissed.

¶25

[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]

¶26

3/3

¶27

WP-3267-18.doc

Dr. Devyani S.Lathi, through C.A. Holder v. Shrikrishna Prabhakar Chitale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Devyani S.Lathi, through C.A. Holder v. Shrikrishna Prabhakar Chitale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyoti Mehta Vs Kishore Janani

Sandip Balasaheb Patil Vs Yogita Sandip Patil

Olive Tree Trading Pvt. Ltd,. Vs F.Lli De Cecco Di Filipro- Fara S. Martino S.P.A

Ganpatrao R. Patil Vs Ananda Dattu Patil (Decd) through Lrs. and Ors.

Sindhubai Dattu Masal and Ors. Vs Baban Khandu Dhaygude and Ors.

Ganpatrao R. Patil Vs Ananda Dattu Patil (Decd) through Lrs. and Ors.