Bombay High Court
Laxminarayan S/O Kuchaiyya Katarpawar vs Asif Pasha S/O Mohammad Abdul Basit ... on 22 November, 2022
Author: V. G. Joshi
Bench: V. G. Joshi
1/4 17.wp7198.2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 7198 OF 2022
Laxminarayan s/o Kuchaiyya Katarpawar
Vs.
Asif Pasha s/o Mohammad Abdul Basit Qureshi and Ors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. D.S. Agnihotri, Advocate for petitioner.
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI, J.
DATE : 22.11.2022.
Heard.
2. The petitioner (tenant) raises a
challenged to the order dated 06.04.2022, passed on Exhibit 234, rejecting petitioner (defendant) to lead further evidence in the suit. The petitioner filed review however, the same was also rejected, which is equally subject matter of challenge.
3. The petitioner (defendant) has filed a suit bearing RCS No.254/2011, seeking possession under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The plaintiffs evidence is complete as well as defendant has examined two witnesses. Thereafter, Prity 2/4 17.wp7198.2022 the defendant sought certain dates for leading further evidence however, it was not led which has caused the trial Court to pass an order on Exhibit 1 dated 13.10.2021, by which the defendant's evidence was closed. Confronting said position, defendant has applied vide Exhibit 234 seeking to set aside the order of closure of evidence and permission to lead further evidence. The said application was rejected as well as review was also rejected.
4. The petitioner's learned counsel would submit that when he has applied for setting aside evidence closed order, he has made it explicit clear that on the very day, he is ready to examine the witness which has been mentioned in paragraph 8 of the application. Further, he has pointed that in review application, he has stated that defendant desires to examine his son as a witness as well as also find his evidence affidavit in the trial Court. However, the trial Court has not considered the same.
5. Precisely, it is the contention that the defendant was not intending to delay the proceeding but he is ready to examine the witness, however, it has been disallowed. The petitioner's learned Prity 3/4 17.wp7198.2022 counsel took me through reply filed by plaintiff to review application by which the plaintiff gave no objection to lead further evidence as a last chance. According to him, despite the said fact the trial Court has rejected defendant to lead further evidence.
6. It reveals from the record that defendant has examined two witnesses and thereafter, for considerable length sought adjournments, which has compelled trial Court to pass an order of closure of evidence.
7. The petitioner's learned counsel has made a statement that defendant is now intending to examine only one witness i.e. his son namely Sachin of whose affidavit of evidence has already been filed in the trial Court.
8. It is informed that the arguments have not been concluded by the trial Court. The matter pertains to giving an opportunity to the party to defend the suit.
9. Issue notice, returnable after two weeks.
10. The trial Court shall not proceed with the suit till next date.
Prity
4/4 17.wp7198.2022
11. The petitioner is permitted to serve notice of this petition on the learned counsel appearing for plaintiff in trial Court in addition to regular mode of service.
12. Stand over after two weeks.
JUDGE Signed By:PRITY S GABHANE Reason:
Location:
Signing Date:24.11.2022 11:17 Prity