Dismissed

Om Prakash Sharma v. Madanlal Mehra and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Nov 2023WP/13361/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the Trial Court's order allowing a witness to give evidence via affidavit as the primary witness is now available in India. The court held the affidavit can be considered only after plaintiff examination and permitted cross-examination. The petition was then disposed.

What did the court decide?

Notice of Motion for separate witness examination set aside; affidavit considered post-plaintiff examination; petition disposed.

Om Prakash Sharma Vs Madanlal Mehra and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

22-wp-13361-2022.doc

¶2

SA Pathan

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.13361 OF 2022

¶5

Om Prakash Sharma … Petitioner V/s. Madanlal Mehra & Ors … Respondent

¶6

SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN

¶7

Digitally signed bySHABNOOR AYUBPATHAN Date: 2023.11.0118:28:07 +0530

¶8

Mr. R. A. Shah a/w Mr. Mohammed Lokhandwala i/by Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co., for petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Mr. Jai Chhabria a/w Mr. Aashdin Chivalwala a/w Mr. Rohan Vasa i/by Argus Partners, for respondent Nos.4(a), 4(b), 5 & 8.

¶10

Mr. Priyank Kulkarni i/by Mr. P. S. Chambers, for respondent No.12.

¶11

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 1, 2023

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

By the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed plaintiff’s witness Naresh Shah to be examined before the plaintiffs.

¶14

The reason for filing such application was that Naresh Shah is husband of plaintiff No.5. It is stated that the plaintiff No.8 who initially intended to file affidavit for evidence, he is a senior citizen and does not reside in India and on the date of filing of application he was out of India.

¶15

The Trial Court has passed order on 26 November 2021. During the course of pendency of writ petition, the plaintiff No.8 is

¶16

¶17

22-wp-13361-2022.doc

¶18

now residing in India, he is available to give his evidence. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that the affidavit filed by the witness as per impugned order dated 26 November 2021 kept as it is. However, plaintiffs shall examine themselves and thereafter, affidavit filed by the witness in furtherance of impugned order shall be considered in accordance with law and the defendants be permitted to cross-examine the said witness.

¶19

Since, the plaintiff No.8 is available for giving evidence, the cause for filing of Notice of Motion for examination of witness Naresh Shah no longer survives. Hence, following order:

¶20

a) The affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief shall be considered in accordance with law after the plaintiffs themselves examination.

¶21

With this clarification, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶22

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶23

Om Prakash Sharma v. Madanlal Mehra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Sharma v. Madanlal Mehra and Ors.

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

Idfc First Bank Ltd. (Erstwhile M/S. Capital First Ltd. and M/S. Future Capital Holdings Ltd.) Vs Stay at Home

Shri. Gundi Savla Bhosale and Ors. Vs Shri. Kundlik Tukaram Dighe and Ors.

Shyam Kanyalal Mundra Vs Dr. Imran Mushtaq Ahemad and Ors.

Shivprasad Mohanlal Tiwari and Anr. Vs Pravin Jeevraj Khandelwal and Anr.

Shivprasad Mohanlal Tiwari and Anr. Vs Pravin Jeevraj Khandelwal and Anr.

Mr. N. Bhaskaran Pillai @ B.N. Pillai Vs Mr.S. Natarajan and Ors.