Allowed

Gauri Curtorcar., v. Jaidip Curtorcar.

Bombay HC20 Sept 2021WP/151/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order allowing reopening of evidence in a matrimonial suit. The High Court set aside the impugned order for failure to record reasons and directed rehearing with fresh reasons.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 30.09.2019 allowing reopening of evidence is set aside. Civil Judge Margao to rehear the application with reasons within four weeks. Costs of impugned order to be refunded.

Gauri Curtorcar., Vs Jaidip Curtorcar. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

19-WP-151-2020.DOC

¶2

Andreza

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 151 OF 2020

¶4

GAURI CURTORCAR …PETITIONER Versus JAIDIP CURTORCAR. …RESPONDENT

¶5

Mr. Vibhav Amonkar, Advocate U/LAS for the Petitioner. Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶6

CORAM: MANISH PITALE, J DATED: 20^th September 2021

¶7

P.C.

¶8

1. By this Petition, the Petitioner (original Respondent) has challenged the order dated 30.09.2019 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Margao, whereby an application filed by the Respondent herein (original Petitioner) for reopening his evidence (Exhibit D-72), has been allowed.

¶9

2. According to Mr. Amonkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the said application was filed at the stage when the recording of evidence was over and the Matrimonial Petition was adjourned for final arguments before the said Court. It is submitted that no exceptional circumstances were made out by the Respondent for reopening of his evidence and that the said Court has allowed the said application in a very casual manner, without assigning any reasons.

¶10

3. Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the Respondent and he submitted that the application was correctly

¶11

Page 1 of 3

¶12

20th September 2021

¶13

19-WP-151-2020.DOC

¶14

allowed because the said document sought to be brought on
record, according to him, shows the falsity of the case of the
Petitioner before this Court.

¶15

4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the rival parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the aforesaid Court has allowed the application at Exhibit D-72 after hearing the arguments, but, without assigning a single reason for allowing the said application. This is not the manner in which applications are to be dealt with, particularly when the stage of the proceedings admittedly was that the evidence of the parties had been recorded and the Matrimonial Petition was adjourned for final arguments before the Court below.

¶16

5. Therefore, on this short ground, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aide. The Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, is directed to hear arguments on the aforesaid application, at Exhibit D-72, again and pass a well reasoned order after considering the contentions of the rival parties.

¶17

6. This Court has not considered the merits of the matter and therefore, the aforesaid Court shall proceed to decide the application, at Exhibit D-72, uninfluenced by the order passed today by this Court.

¶18

7. The costs imposed in the impugned Order, if already paid, shall be refunded to the Respondent herein. The Application at Exhibit D-72 shall be decided within a period of four weeks from today.

¶19

Page 2 of 3 20^th September 2021

¶20

19-WP-151-2020.DOC

¶21

8. Petition stands disposed of.

¶22

MANISH PITALE, J.

¶23

ANDREZA PEREIRA Digitally signed by ANDREZA PEREIRA Date: 2021.09.20 17:58:15 +05'30'

¶24

Page 3 of 3 20^th September 2021

Gauri Curtorcar., v. Jaidip Curtorcar.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gauri Curtorcar., v. Jaidip Curtorcar.

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

Alamin, Presently Lodged in Judicial Custody at Central Jail Colvale Vs State of Goa, Thr. Public Prosecutor and Anr.

Rajendranath Ganesh Usgaonkar., Vs Deendayal Nagari Sakhari Pathsaunsthan Maryadit, Rep. by Its Br. Man., Archana S. Govekar and Anr.

Sanjay Vithu Barde., Vs Shailesh Shetty and Anr.

Meb Industries, Thr. Its Prop., Rajesaheb M. Shaikh., Vs Sanjivani Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Thr. Its Administrator/Managing Director.

Meenal Mohan Garudi @ Baby Morto Porab Vs Mohan Eknath Garudi @ Dessai

Pramod Guno Fal Dessai and Anr. Vs Shakuntala Madhu Gaonkar and 43 Ors.