Allowed¶21

Sambhaji Vinayak Jagtap v. Santosh Subhash Khandagale and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Apr 2025IA/1316/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

witness summons attesting witness; refusal of cross-examination; six occasions 135 questions; irrelevant questions paragraph 13 interim application; Court Commissioner Geeta Sonawane recording evidence; single session assurance; change of advocates discharge; Testamentary Suit No. 38 of 2019; IA No. 1316 of 2024; Kamal Khata J; Bombay High Court Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction; 30 July 2025; interim application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Witness summons directed to be issued to the attesting witness; evidence of the attesting witness to be recorded by Court Commissioner Ms. Geeta Sonawane; Interim Application allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) and disposed of; liberty reserved to the Plaintiff to seek directions if the Defendants' Advocate fails to honour the single-session assurance. ¶21

Sambhaji Vinayak Jagtap vs Santosh Subhash Khandagale and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether a witness summons should be issued to the attesting witness, who was refusing to offer himself for further cross-examination by the Defendants' advocates. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

Issuance of a witness summons to the attesting witness is directed.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The questions earlier put to the attesting witness (tabulated at paragraph 13 of the Interim Application) were found by the Court to be clearly irrelevant to the issue at hand.

¶16

Key takeaways

Ms. Geeta Sonawane, the Court Commissioner appointed earlier, shall record the evidence of the attesting witness.ratio¶23
The Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).ratio¶21
Liberty is granted to the Plaintiff to apply for appropriate directions in the event the Defendants' Advocate fails to adhere to the assurance given to the Court.obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction), Kamal Khata, J., 30 July 2025 — Interim Application No. 1316 of 2024 in Testamentary Suit No. 38 of 2019 — Plaintiff sought a witness summons to the attesting witness who refused further cross-examination after being questioned on six occasions (135 questions, many held clearly irrelevant) — Defendants' newly-on-record counsel raised no objection and assured completion of cross-examination in a single session — Issuance of witness summons directed; evidence of the attesting witness to be recorded by Court Commissioner Ms. Geeta Sonawane; application allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) and disposed of; liberty to Plaintiff to apply for directions if the assurance is not adhered to.

¶1

15-IA-1316-2024.DOC

¶2

sumedh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1316 OF 2024

¶5

¶6

TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.38 OF 2019

¶7

Sambhaji Vinayak Jagtap … Applicant In the matter between Govind Ramchandra Gole … Deceased Sambhaji Vinayak Jagtap … Plaintiff/Applicant V/s. Santosh Subhash Khandagale … Defendants ______________________ Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. Siddharth Joshi i/by Adv. Varsha Bhogle for the Petitioner/Applicant. Mr. Amjith Anandan a/w. Adv. Sachin Pawar, Adv. Dewant Mhatre for Defendant Nos.3 to 7

¶8

CORAM : Kamal Khata, J. DATED : 30^th July 2025.

¶9

P.C.:-

¶10

Mr. Jagtiani, learned senior Counsel for the Plaintiff, submits he is constrained to seek the issuance of witness summons to the attesting witness, as he is refusing to offer himself for cross examination by the Defendant’s Advocates. This refusal stems from the fact that the attesting witness has been cross-examined on six occasions, during which 135

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH NAMDEO NAMDEO SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2025.08.04 18:40:57 +0530

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

15-IA-1316-2024.DOC

¶14

questions were put to him, many of which were clearly irrelevant.

¶15

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the list of such questions are tabulated at paragraph 13 of the Interim Application.

¶16

Upon perusal of the said questions, it is evident that those questions set out are clearly irrelevant to the issue at hand. The nature and volume of questions appear to have caused considerable annoyance to the attesting witness, resulting in his unwillingness to continue with the cross examination.

¶17

Learned Advocate for Defendant Nos.3 to 7 submits that the previous Advocates have taken discharge and that they are now on record as the new Advocates. He submits that there is no objection to the issuance of witness summons to the attesting witness and further gives an assurance to the Court that they will make all efforts to complete the cross - examination in a single session.

¶18