Bombay High Court
Babulal Sandhukha Pathan vs Sarlabai Sunil Alias Damodhar Chape And ... on 16 October, 2019
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
WP/12845/2019
1 of 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12845 OF 2019
BABULAL SANDHUKHA PATHAN
VERSUS
SARLABAI SUNIL ALIAS DAMODHAR CHAPE AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Shri Bholkar Yogesh
h/f Shri Jadhav K.B.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: October 16, 2019 ...
PER COURT :-
1. The petitioner / sole respondent in an accident claims case -
MACP No.37 of 2013, is aggrieved by multiple orders, which are as under:-
(a) Order dated 5.10.2018, by which evidence of a Doctor from a Superspeciality Hospital, travelling outstation, has been closed as the petitioner declined to cross-examine him further, after commencing the cross-examination.
(b) Order dated 30.11.2018, when the cross-examination of a Doctor - PW 5 was closed as the petitioner declined to cross-examine him on the pretext of seeking an adjournment of one day.
(c) Order dated 4.1.2019, by which, the cross-examination of PW 6 / brother of the deceased, was also closed as the petitioner declined to cross-examine him.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2019 04:59:13 :::
WP/12845/2019 2 of 4
(d) Order dated 4.4.2019, by which, the evidence of the petitioner was closed as he did not lead oral evidence.
(e) Order dated 5.1.2019, by which, his application seeking recalling of the no cross order has been rejected.
2. I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner for quite some time and have perused the paper book with his assistance.
3. I am not entertaining this petition, in so far as PW 4 is concerned, as he is an R.M.O. from a Superspeciality Hospital and who was substantially cross-examined and the petitioner has declined to cross-examine him further even when the adjournment application was rejected.
4. This petition is being entertained only to the extent of the cross-examination of PW 5, PW 6 and setting aside the order of closing the petitioner's evidence.
5. Issue notice to the respondents 1, 5 and 6 / original claimants, returnable on 3.12.2019.
6. The petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.15,000/- before the trial Court and a further amount of Rs.10,000/- on/or before ::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2019 04:59:13 ::: WP/12845/2019 3 of 4 20.11.2019. If this petition is allowed to the extent of PW 5, the costs of Rs.15,000/- would be disbursed by the trial Court to Dr. Prashant Jalindar Temak-Patil. If the petitioner succeeds to the extent of therecalling PW 6 and the order dated 1.4.2019, an amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid disbursed in equal proportions to the widow Sarlabai and the father of the deceased Laxman.
7. There shall be no extension of time, even by one day, and failure to deposit the total amount of Rs.25,000/- would lead to vacating the relief granted by this Court, on 21.11.2019, automatically.
8. Subject to the compliance of the above directions, the Tribunal shall adjourn MACP No. 27 of 2013, till the returnable date in this matter.
9. Copies of the petition paper book shall be furnished for issuance of notice on/or before 24.10.2019, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court on 25.10.2019.
10. In the event the petitioner fails in this petition, the entire amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be disbursed to the widow Sarlabai and ::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2019 04:59:13 ::: WP/12845/2019 4 of 4 the father of deceased, Laxman in equal proportions since they are required to litigate in this High Court.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...
akl/d ::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2019 04:59:13 :::