Disposed

Suresh Govind Shivalkar v. Jitendra Mahadev Whankade

Bombay HC24 Jun 2024WP/288/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a trial court order recalling the plaintiff's witnesses for cross-examination in Special Civil Suit No.21 of 2014. The court noted that the earlier 'no cross' order still subsisted and had not been set aside by any application, issued notice to the respondent, deferred suit proceedings, and stayed the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued; suit proceedings deferred; impugned order dated 16.10.2023 stayed meanwhile.

Suresh Govind Shivalkar vs Jitendra Mahadev… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

9.WP.288.2024.doc

¶2

HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.288 OF 2024

¶6

Suresh Govind Shivalkar .. Petitioner Versus Jitendra Mahadev Whankade .. Respondent

¶7

Mr. M. A. Khan a/w. Ms. Dipti Mehta, Advocates for Petitioner.

¶8

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : JANUARY 16, 2024

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1. Heard Mr. Khan, learned Advocate for Petitioner.

¶11

2. This Writ Petition takes exception to the order dated 16.10.2023 passed in Application filed below Exhibit-150 in Special Civil Suit No.21 of 2014.

¶12

3. Application was filed below Exhibit-150 by the Defendant to recall Plaintiff’s witnesses namely Plaintiff himself being PW-1 and two other production witnesses from the office of District Collector who were examined by the Plaintiff in the year 2016.

¶13

4. After examination-in-chief of Plaintiff’s witnesses was over, it

¶14

is seen that when the trial was fixed for the Defendant and his Advocate to cross-examine the witnesses, the Defendant nor his Advocate remained present resultantly leading to passing of the order dated 21.11.2015 by the Trial Court recording that:-

¶15

1 of 3

¶16

9.WP.288.2024.doc

¶17

“Plaintiff witness present when called out defendant

¶18

and his advocate absent hence no cross”.

¶19

5. Hence Plaintiff took objection to the Application filed below

¶20

Exhibit-150 and contended that without the aforementioned order of ‘no cross’ having been set aside the Application filed below Exhibit-150 was not maintainable nor tenable.

¶21

6. Leaving aside the merits of the Application filed below Exhibit-150, the aforementioned order of ‘no cross’ still subsists. It is seen that without any Application having been made to set aside the ‘no cross’ order before the learned Trial Court, no further substantive and consequential directions could have been passed.

¶22

7. It is seen that without any application been made, the ‘no cross’ order is set aside by the impugned order.

¶23

8. Hence issue notice to the Respondent. Petitioner is directed to serve the Respondent. Humdast permitted. In addition to Court’s notice, Petitioner is permitted to serve copy of Petition and today’ order within a period of two weeks from today on the Respondent and inform him about the next date of hearing by any permissible mode of service and file appropriate affidavit of service with tangible proof thereof. Respondent is directed to file Affidavit-in-Reply to the Petition within a period of two weeks on receipt of copy of Petition and today’s order.

¶24

2 of 3

¶25

9.WP.288.2024.doc

¶26

9. In view of the above observations and prima facie findings the suit proceedings before the learned Trial Court shall stand deferred in the meanwhile. This Petition shall be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

¶27

10. Needless to state that the impugned order dated 16.10.2023 shall also stand stayed in the meanwhile.

¶28

11. Stand over to 13^th February, 2024 .

¶29

H. H. SAWANT

¶30

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶31

Digitally signed by HARSHADA HARSHADA HANUMANT HANUMANTSAWANT SAWANT Date: 2024.01.17 14:30:42 +0530

¶32

3 of 3

Suresh Govind Shivalkar v. Jitendra Mahadev Whankade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Govind Shivalkar v. Jitendra Mahadev Whankade

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Satin Bharat Asher vs Jayant Lal Chetnani

Yash Kalpesh Sanghavi vs Chanchalben Harilal Sanghavi

Payal Pandurang Patil Before Marriage Payal Ramchandra Jadhav vs Pandurang Prabhakar Patil

Shivram Andu Khot Since Dec Thr Lrs vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Revenue Secretary and Ors.

Dhruve Liladhar Mehta Decd Thru Lhrs and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra (the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre No. 1, Panvel )

Rajendra Bhikamchand Jain and Anr. vs Kavishanlal Gangasahay Agrawal and Ors.