Dismissed

Sajeda Khayum Shaikh v. Ismail Ahmed Shaikh

Bombay HC2 Jan 2023WP/13206/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order rejecting an objection to the filing of a second affidavit of evidence, the High Court held that no statutory bar exists prohibiting such filing before cross-examination. The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was allowed cross-examination on both affidavits.

What did the court decide?

The Writ petition was dismissed with liberty to cross-examine on both affidavits of evidence.

Sajeda Khayum Shaikh Vs Ismail Ahmed Shaikh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

31 WRIT PETITION NO.13206 OF 2022

¶4

SAJEDA KHAYUM SHAIKH
VERSUS

¶5

ISMAIL AHMED SHAIKH

¶6

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Rajiv Deshmukh

¶7

 CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

¶8

 DATE : 02-01-2023

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

.By this petition, petitioner has challenged the order
dated 19.09.2022 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division,
Latur below Exh.34 in R.C.S. No.3 of 2018 whereby the
objection of petitioner to filing of two affidavits of evidence by
respondent-plaintiff has been rejected by the trail Court. The
learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that without
taking the leave of the Court the second affidavit of evidence has
been filed.

¶11

2.I have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for petitioner.

¶12

3.On 09.12.2018 respondent-plaintiff had filed the

¶13

¶14

first affidavit of evidence and second affidavit of evidence has
been filed on 02.03.2020. It is not disputed that
cross-examination of respondent-plaintiff has not yet
commenced and petitioner herein would have an opportunity to
cross-examine plaintiff on the original affidavit of evidence as
well as additional affidavit of evidence. The learned counsel for
petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any bar contained in
the Code of Civil Procedure prohibiting respondent from filing
additional affidavit of evidence.

¶15

4.Considering the aforesaid, I do not find that there is
any need to interfere with the impugned order passed by the
Civil Judge Junior Division, Latur. The Writ petition is
accordingly dismissed.

¶16

5.Needless to state that petitioner will be at liberty to
cross-examine respondent–plaintiff on both the affidavits of
evidence filed below Exhs.16 and 23.

¶17

( SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. )

¶18

GGP

Sajeda Khayum Shaikh v. Ismail Ahmed Shaikh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeda Khayum Shaikh v. Ismail Ahmed Shaikh

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

Pada Mohalla Masjid Trust Thr. Its Authorized Trustee Shr. Farooq a. Rashid Patel vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Panvel

Salvi Chemical Limited Thr. Its Authorized Person Mr. Sheshmani S. Giri vs Mr. Sandeep Kumar Prasad and Anr.

Maharashtra Labour Union vs Edelwelss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Mr.Subhash Ramyadi Chouhan vs Capt.Aniket Pradhan Sr.F.P.Superintendent M/S.Msc Crewing Service Private Limited and Ors.

Ajay Devidas Chincholkar Vs Shilpa Ajay Chincholkar and Others

Rajendra Uttam Patil Vs Lalita Rajendra Patil