Partly allowed¶22

Dyaneshwar Shankar Patil v. Shridhar C. Patil Died Thru. Lrs. Sugandhabai S. Patil Died Thru. Lrs. Kailas S. Patil and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Nov 2025AO/75/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

remand; additional evidence; equal/equal opportunity of hearing; discriminatory order; perverse order; joint measurement report; Application Exhibit-13; liberty to conduct cross-examination; perpetual injunction and possession; R.C.S.No.77 of 2020; RCA No.21 of 2016 / Regular Civil Appeal; Appeal From Order (AFO); Aurangabad Bench; eight-month deadline; amendment of pleadings; Trial Court; lower Appellate Court.

What did the court decide?

Appeal From Order partly allowed; impugned judgment and order modified so that both parties are at liberty to lead additional evidence; lower Appellate Court requested to decide the appeal expeditiously, not more than eight months; parties at liberty to apply for amendment to the pleadings, if required. ¶22

Dyaneshwar Shankar Patil Vs Shridhar C. Patil Died Thru. Lrs. Sugandhabai S. Patil Died Thru. Lrs. Kailas S. Patil and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant-defendant should also be given an equal opportunity to lead additional evidence before the Trial Court when the remand order granted such opportunity only to the respondent/plaintiff, making the impugned order discriminatory.

¶16

Court's answer

Once an opportunity is given to one party to lead evidence, the adversary cannot be prevented from leading evidence; the impugned order granting the opportunity only to one side is discriminatory ex-facie.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Mere liberty to conduct cross-examination of the witness is not sufficient; the impugned order needs to be modified to allow the appellant to lead evidence.

¶6

Key takeaways

The impugned judgment and order is modified so that both parties shall be at liberty to lead additional evidence.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) - Dyaneshwar Shankar Patil v. Shridhar C. Patil (died) through LRs and others, 51 Appeal From Order No. 75 of 2025 (decided 06.11.2025). The appeal challenged the order dated 30.10.2022 of the lower Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.21 of 2016 remanding the matter to the Trial Court and granting opportunity only to the plaintiffs to lead additional evidence, prompted by a report of joint measurement placed on record for the first time in the appeal through Application Exhibit-13. Holding that once one party is given an opportunity to lead evidence its adversary cannot be denied a like opportunity, that mere liberty to cross-examine is insufficient, and that the order was discriminatory ex-facie, the Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the order so that both parties may lead additional evidence, directing disposal of the appeal within eight months, with liberty to seek amendment of pleadings.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:30691

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

51 APEAL FROM ORDER NO. 75 OF 2025

¶4

DYANESHWAR SHANKAR PATIL

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

SHRIDHAR C. PATIL DIED THRU. LRS. SUGANDHABAI S. PATIL DIED THRU. LRS. KAILAS S. PATIL AND ORS.

¶7

S. K. Chavan, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Dhananjay Mane, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1B to 1G

¶8

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 06.11.2025

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

Heard both sides. Heard finally at the admission stage.

¶11

The appeal is directed against the order dated 30.10.2022 passed

¶12

in Regular Civil Appeal No.21 of 2016, thereby remanding the matter to the Trial Court and granting opportunity to the plaintiffs to lead additional evidence.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that impugned order is

¶14

discriminatory and the appellant-defendant should have been given equal opportunity of hearing before the Trial Court. It is submitted that the

¶15

( 2 ) 51 AFO 75 OF 2025

¶16

measurement report has been placed on record and the appellant would be required to lead the evidence. It is submitted that the impugned order is perverse to the extent that only the respondent was given an opportunity.

¶17

Per contra, Mr. Mane, learned counsel submits that there is no need to extend any opportunity to the appellant to lead any evidence. The lower Appellate Court has already taken care of by permitting the appellant to conduct cross-examination of the witness. It is submitted that the report of the joint measurement was not available when the Trial Court decided the matter and only to that extent, the matter is relegated to the Trial Court.

¶18

The respondent had filed suit bearing R.C.S.No.77 of 2020 for the relief of perpetual injunction and possession. It was dismissed vide judgment dated 27.11.2014. Being aggrieved, RCA No.21 of 2016 was preferred by the respondent. Application Exhibit-13 was pressed into service for leading additional evidence. The lower Appellate Court thought it fit to relegate the matter to the Trial Court for leading evidence in view of the report of joint measurement which was placed on record for the first time in the lower Appellate Court. Admittedly, the report of the joint measurement was not available in the Trial Court. It was made available for the first time in the

¶19

( 3 ) 51 AFO 75 OF 2025

¶20

lower Appellate Court in view of application Exhibit-13. In the supervening events, the matter was relegated to the Trial Court.

¶21

Both sides do not dispute that the order of remand is legal and proper. Once the opportunity is given to one of the parties to lead evidence, I do not find any reason to prevent adversary to lead evidence. The impugned order is discriminatory ex-facie. Mere granting of liberty to conduct crossexamination would not be sufficient. I therefore find that the impugned order needs to be modified.

¶22

The Appeal From Order is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order stands modified only to the extent that both the parties shall be at liberty to lead the additional evidence. The lower Appellate Court is requested to decide the appeal expeditiously and as early as possible not more than eight (8) months.

¶23

Needless to mention that the parties would be at at liberty to apply for amendment to the pleadings, if required.

¶24

( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )

¶25

PRW

Dyaneshwar Shankar Patil v. Shridhar C. Patil Died Thru. Lrs. Sugandhabai S. Patil Died Thru. Lrs. Kailas S. Patil and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dyaneshwar Shankar Patil v. Shridhar C. Patil Died Thru. Lrs. Sugandhabai S. Patil Died Thru. Lrs. Kailas S. Patil and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kusumbai Baburao Navpute and Others Vs Sarangdhar Balaji Dahihande

Narayan Ambadas Muthal Vs Vitthal Ambadas Muthal and Others

The Executive Engineer , Irrigation Department Strengthening Division Omerga Vs Dagadu Revan Kuthar ..Died

Union of India through the General Manager Central Railway Mumbai and Ors. Vs Atmaram Rangnath Tonde

Bhivsen Yadavrao Bhatane Died Lrs and Ors. Vs Ram Sambha Murkute and Ors.

Bhivsen Yadavrao Bhatane Died Lrs and Ors. Vs Ram Sambha Murkute and Ors.