SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Bom) 548

C.L.PANGARKAR
Kawadu – Appellant
Versus
Suresh – Respondent


Advocates appeared:For the Petitioners:M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, R4, Kirti Satpute, Advocate.

Judgment:-

Oral Judgment:


1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties.


2. This writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Chandrapur on an application (Exh.100).


3. The facts are as follows -

The respondents/plaintiffs have instituted a suit for declaration, partition and separate possession. The petitioners/defendants had filed a list of witnesses in the said proceeding by way of defence. The evidence of the plaintiffs is recorded and they have been cross-examined by the defendants. The defendant's affidavit has been filed on record, but has not as yet been examined.

4. The plaintiffs moved an application (Exh.100) before the court praying that it should direct the defendants to file affidavit of all the witnesses on record at a time. This application was opposed by the defendants. In spite of the opposition of the defendants, the learned judge of the trial court granted the application and the defendants feel aggrieved by the same.


5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.


6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that there is nothing in the Rule 4 o







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top