Bombay High Court
Nareshkumar Trilokchand Agarwal Alias ... vs 1. Vijay Kumar Gupta & Ors on 12 February, 2019
Author: R.D. Dhanuka
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka
ppn 1 4.ts.72.05 wt 63.06.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.72 OF 2005
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.528 OF 2005
Vijay Kumar Gupta .. Plaintiff
Vs.
Naresh Kumar Gupta & Anr. .. Defendants
ALONG WITH
TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.63 OF 2006
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.785 OF 2005
Naresh Trilokchand Agarwal .. Plaintiff
Vs.
Vijay Kumar Gupta & Anr. .. Defendants
---
Mr.Simil Purohit a/w Ms.Chandnani a/w Mr.Pratik Jadhav & Mr.Ashish
Gupta I/by Lexim Associates for the plaintiff.
Mr.Sharan Jagtiani a/w Mr.Mohit Arora, Mr.Aditya Pimple I/by
M/s.Desai & Diwanji & Co. for the defendants.
---
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.
DATE : 12th February 2019 P.C. : . Both the parties have made the corrections in the notes of
evidence dated 23rd January 2019. Copy of the draft notes of evidence corrected by both the parties is taken on record and is being uploaded.
2. It is made clear that in so far as Agreement for Sale dated 1st September 1984 referred during the course of the cross-examination is ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2019 00:22:44 ::: ppn 2 4.ts.72.05 wt 63.06.doc concerned, it is the case of the plaintiff that the original of the alleged Agreement for Sale dated 1st September 1984 has not been produced by the defendant or any witness so far. Handwriting expert has also relied upon the photocopy of the alleged original Agreement for Sale dated 1 st September 1984 in evidence. The said alleged Agreement for Sale dated 1st September 1984 on which the question have been asked and the answers thereof would be considered at the stage of hearing of the matter.
3. Cross-examination of the witness Shri Yashwant Datey examined by the defendant/caveator was partly recorded in Court. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties agreed that further cross- examination of this witness will be recorded before the Court Commissioner. The respondent however has expressed difficulty to pay the fees and expenses of the learned Court Commissioner.
4. Mr.Purohit, learned counsel for the plaintiff, on instructions, states that at the first instance, his client is ready and willing to pay costs and expenses of the learned Court Commissioner, in so far as the balance cross-examination of Shri Yashwant Datey is concerned, subject to further orders, as may be passed by this Court regarding sharing of the costs at the stage of final hearing of the suit. Statement is accepted.
5. Both the parties agreed to appoint Ms.Janvi Karnik as a Court Commissioner. Mr.Purohit, learned counsel for the plaintiff assures that cross-examination of this witness would be over in two sessions provided the said witness Shri Yashwant Datey co-operates. Assurance given by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is accepted.
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2019 00:22:44 :::ppn 3 4.ts.72.05 wt 63.06.doc
6. The plaintiff is directed to proceed with the cross- examination of this witness before the learned Court Commissioner as directed. The learned Court Commissioner is requested to submit a report after recording the cross-examination of this witness on or before 31 st March 2019.
7. Parties are directed to co-operate with each other and with the learned Court Commissioner in recording the balance evidence of this witness and in submitting a report on or before 31 st March 2019. If any further expenses are required to be borne for recording the evidence of this witness in the Court premises, the same shall be borne by the plaintiff at the first instance subject to the similar directions.
8. Place the matter on board for 'Directions' on 31 st March 2019.
R.D. DHANUKA, J.
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/02/2019 00:22:44 :::