Dismissed¶23

Gautam Limbaji Khurnagale v. Nanadkishor Narayandas Karwa and Anr.

Bombay HC3 Mar 2025WP/2766/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition No. 2766 of 2025, Bombay High Court, N. J. Jamadar, J., decided 3 March 2025 (petitioner Gautam Limbaji Khurnagale v. Nandkishor Narayandas Karwa and anr.). Additional evidence on appeal under Order XLI Rule 27(aa)(b) CPC 1908; examination of Advocate who issued public notice in “Dainik Sangharsh” dated 3 August 2002; notice absent from plaint; document already exhibited by consent (Exhibit-38); District Judge, Barshi orders upheld; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The learned District Judge categorically recorded that there was no reference to the said public notice in the plaint, which weighed against permitting the additional evidence. ¶21

Gautam Limbaji Khurnagale vs Nanadkishor Narayandas Karwa and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned District Judge erred in declining to allow the petitioner to examine, as additional evidence at the appellate stage, the Advocate who had issued the public notice dated 3rd August, 2002, particularly when the notice document had already been admitted and marked in evidence.

¶22

Court's answer

The learned District Judge categorically recorded that there was no reference to the said public notice in the plaint, which weighed against permitting the additional evidence.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

By no stretch of imagination could it be said that the applicant could not have taken steps to examine the said witness till the document came to be filed in the year 2023; delay in seeking the examination was unexplained.

¶21

Key takeaways

In any event, the document for the proof of which the witness was to be examined has been admitted and marked in evidence, so the application stands substantially worked out and examination of the witness is no longer necessary.ratio¶21
The learned District Judge committed no error in declining to allow the petitioner to examine the witness at the appellate stage.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N. J. Jamadar, J.) dismissed a writ petition challenging orders dated 4th November, 2023 and 4th November, 2024 of the learned District Judge, Barshi, whereby the petitioner's application (Exhibit-34) to lead additional evidence on appeal — examination of the Advocate who had issued a public notice in the newspaper “Dainik Sangharsh” on 3rd August, 2002, sought under Order XLI Rule 27(aa)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — was rejected, and a subsequent application (Exhibit-38) was only partly allowed by consent exhibition of the notice. Upholding the impugned orders, the Court held that (i) there was no reference to the said notice in the plaint; (ii) the applicant could by no stretch of imagination claim inability to examine the witness till the document was filed in 2023; and (iii) in any event the document for whose proof the witness was to be examined stood admitted and marked in evidence, so the application stood substantially worked out. Accordingly, the District Judge committed no error in declining to permit examination of the witness at the appellate stage.

¶1

15-WP2766-2025.DOC

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2766 OF 2025

¶6

SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI

¶7

Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2025.03.05 14:07:32 +0530

¶8

Gautam Limbaji Khurnagale ...Petitioner Versus Nandkishor Narayandas Karwa and anr. …Respondents

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

Mr. Sujeet Bugade, for the Petitioner.

¶11

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 3^rd MARCH, 2025

¶12

PC:-

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

The challenge in this petition is to the orders dated 4^th November, 2023 and 4^th November, 2024, passed by the learned District Judge, Barshi.

¶15

An application (Exhibit-34) was preferred by the petitioner seeking to lead additional evidence in the nature of examination of an Advocate, who had issued public notice in the newspaper “Dainik Sangharsh” on 3^rd August, 2002. The said application was rejected as the learned District Judge found that there was no mention of the said notice in the plaint. Moreover, the additional evidence was sought to be adduced under Order XLI

¶16

Rule 27(aa)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶17

1/2

¶18

15-WP2766-2025.DOC

¶19

Thereafter, the petitioner preferred another application (Exhibit-38). The said application was partly allowed as the parties to the appeal submitted that they have no objection to exhibit the said document i.e. pubic notice.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Advocate, who had issued the said public notice on 3^rd August, 2002 subsequently became a Judicial Officer and, therefore, he could not be examined during the pendency of the trial.

¶21

First and foremost, the learned District Judge has categorically recorded that there was no reference to the said notice in the plaint. Secondly, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the applicant could not have taken steps to examine the said witness till the said document came to be filed in the year 2023. In any event, the said document, for the proof of which the said witness was to be examined, has been admitted and marked in evidence. The application thus stands substantially worked out.

¶22

The learned District Judge, thus, cannot be said to have committed any error in declining to allow the petitioner to examine the witness at the appellate stage.

¶23

The petition stands dismissed.

¶24

2/2

Gautam Limbaji Khurnagale v. Nanadkishor Narayandas Karwa and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Limbaji Khurnagale v. Nanadkishor Narayandas Karwa and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Fairgrowth Investment Ltd. Vs the Custodian

Vipul Logistic and Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Custodian and Ors.

Madhu Harichand Narang and 3 Ors. vs Gopal Kishindas Narang

Col Retd N Thiagarajan vs M/s Ram India Mittal Township Ltd.

Csb Bank Ltd. Throu. Amitkumar Shankar Detke vs Suyog Constructions Throu. Its Partner and Ors.

Baban Shamshuddin Pathan vs Ruksana Sikandar Pathan and Ors.