Partly allowed

Mr. Hubert J Fonseca Since Decd. Thr His Legal Heirs v. Smt. Fausta Sathyasilan

Bombay HC28 Mar 2023WP/5221/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding eviction proceedings, the Bombay High Court held that the admission of a sale agreement by the petitioner's counsel did not forfeit the petitioner's right to cross-examine the respondent on the nature of the purchase. The petition was partly allowed to permit this cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to cross-examine the respondent's witness regarding the agreement to sale dated 1st April, 2014.

Mr. Hubert J Fonseca Since Decd. Thr His Legal Heirs Vs… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

25-WP-5221-2022.doc

¶2

Shantanu Dhudum

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 5221 OF 2022

¶6

Mr. Hubert J Fonseca Since Decd. Thr. His legal heirs. ….Petitioner Versus Smt. Fausta Sathyasilan ….Respondent

¶7

Mr. Piyush Raheja a/w Mr. Mihir kakade i/b Jayakar & Partners for the Petitionr.

¶8

Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANTANU SHANKARSA SHANKARSA DHUDUM DHUDUM Date: 2023.04.11 18:31:32 +0530

¶9

Mr. Atharva Dandekar a/w Ms. Akshata Naik for the Respondent. -----

¶10

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶11

DATE : 28 MARCH 2023.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶14

counsel for the respondent.

¶15

It is contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that predecessor of petitioner had filed application of eviction against the respondent before the competent authority, during the pendency of that application predecessor of the petitioners expired. Thereafter, as a legal heir, petitioner stepped into the shoes of original applicant.

1/3

25-WP-5221-2022.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

Learned counsel further submits that it is the case of the respondent before the competent authority that they had purchased the suit premises by way of agreement to sale from predecessor of the petitioner. The said document was produced before the competent authority by the respondent, inadvertently the advocate of petitioners’ admitted the said documents. When petitioners wants to crossexamine the respondent on the said document the trial court has held that as document is admitted. Hence petitioner can not cross-examine the respondent on the said document, which is illegal. Hence, requested to allow the writ petition.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the prayer clause of the writ petition says about the execution of document and it does not says about right to cross-examination. The learned counsel further submits that once document exhibited then witness cannot be cross-examined on it. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶21

I have heard both learned counsel, perused impugned order, when respondent have come with the case that they have purchased the suit property. By way of agreement to sale then the petitioners have right to cross-examine the respondent witness on that point. Mere admission of document does not mean that other side

2/3

25-WP-5221-2022.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

has ceased his right to cross-examine on that document.

¶26

In view of above, I pass following order.

¶27

ORDER

¶28

i. Writ petition is partly allowed.

¶29

ii. The petitioners are allowed to cross examine the

¶30

respondent witness in respect of agreement of sale dated 1^st April, 2014 as prayed in prayer clause D.

¶31

iii. Writ petition is disposed of.

¶32

iv. All contention of both the parties are kept open.

¶33

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶34

3/3

Mr. Hubert J Fonseca Since Decd. Thr His Legal Heirs v. Smt. Fausta Sathyasilan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Hubert J Fonseca Since Decd. Thr His Legal Heirs v. Smt. Fausta Sathyasilan

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

Shri Mohamad Mobin Mohd Sujat Khan and Ors. Vs Themah.State Rd,Transport Corpn. and Anr.

Shri Rahmat Abdul Majit Elhai and Ors. Vs Mah. State Road Transport Corpon. and Anr.

Basavaraj S/O Sidanna (Siddappa) Kushur, Vs M/S.Cifco Finance Ltd. and Ors.

Sandip Prakash Raut and Anr. Vs Vijay Santu Nangare and Anr.

The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through Its Divisional Manager, Vs Sunil Kondaji Gulve and Anr.

The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through Its Divisional Manager, Vs Sunil Kondaji Gulve and Anr.