Z.A.HAQ
Anil Ramesh Bhusari – Appellant
Versus
Bhaskar Ramesh Bhusari – Respondent
Z.A. Haq, J.
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. The petition takes exception to the orders passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner (Exhibit 228) to issue witness summons to Shri Vithoba Rajaram Shelke and order rejecting the application (Exhibit 229) praying for recall of the order passed on Exhibit 228 and for permission to examine Sudam Umaji Jadhav as the witness.
3. It is undisputed that the petitioner/original plaintiff has not given the list of witnesses in the application (Exhibit 228). Prayer was made to issue witness summons to Shri Vithoba Shelke, however, no reason is given in the application pointing out the necessity of examining the said witness. In the application (Exhibit 229), the plaintiff prayed for recall of the order passed on application (Exhibit 228) and submitted that the plaintiff be permitted to examine Shri Sudam Umaji Jadhav. Again, the reason necessitating the examination of this witness is not given in the application. Sub-rules (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Rule 1 of Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure read as follows:
ORDER XVI
SUMMONING AND AT
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.