Advocates:
['B Amin', 'Co', 'suraj suresh shah', '', 'Suraj Shah']

1/11 9 WP 611-22.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 611 OF 2022

Elegant Marbles and Granite

Industries Ltd

.. Petitioner

Versus

Satish Dhirajlal Vithalani & ors

.. Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION ST NO. 24321 OF 2022

Leonard Holdings & Trading Pvt.Ltd

.. Petitioner

Versus

Satish Dhirajlal Vithalani & ors

.. Respondents

…

Mrs.Ranjana Parikh for the original plaintiff.

Mr.Anjal Amin i/b B. Amin & Co. for the petitioner

Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Sr. Advocate i/b S.S. Shah for the respondent.

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

DATED : 20^th JANUARY, 2022

P.C:-

1

Before commencing the hearing of this Court, Shri

Amin, the learned Advocate mentioned that Writ Petition St

No.24321/2021 is filed by defendant no.142 for the same cause

of action i.e. the forfeiture of the right to cross-examination as like

the adverse order having been suffered by the present petitioner

who is defendant no.40 in TE & R Suit 5/6/2008.

Tilak

2/11 9 WP 611-22.doc

2

The learned Advocate Mrs.Parikh representing the

original plaintiff, who is appearing on behalf of the plaintiff in

this Court, consents for calling for the papers in Writ Petition St

No. 24321/2021. The case papers in WP St. No. 24321/2021 are

called for and both these matters are heard together.

3

I have considered the strenuous submissions of Shri

Jagtiani, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Shah on behalf of

both the petitioners. I have considered the vehement submissions

of Mrs.Parikh on behalf of the original plaintiff.

4

The issue involved in this case is as regards the ‘No

Cross’ order passed by the learned trial Court on 11/10/2021, as

against these two petitioners, who are defendant 40 and

defendant 142, respectively. It is undisputed that the trial Court

has also passed the order of forfeiture of the right to cross-

examine as against defendant nos.39, 54, 55, 59, 60, 62, 100, 102

to 106, 108, 110, 113, 119 and 124 by order dated 20/9/2021. A

similar order has been passed on 8/10/2021, forfeiting the right

(to cross-examine) of defendant nos. 15, 37, 38, 43, 61 and 126.

All these defendants, including the present two petitioners were

to cross-examine PW No.1.

5

The learned Advocate for the plaintiff informs on

instructions, and also since she appears on behalf of the plaintiff

Tilak

3/11 9 WP 611-22.doc

in the original proceedings before the trial Court that an

Application has been filed by the plaintiff for re-examining PW

No.1 and the said Application (Exhibit-1319) is pending hearing.

Nevertheless, she submits that, if at all, this Court comes to a

conclusion that defendant nos.40 and 142 be permitted to cross-

examine PW 1, PW 1 would remain present in the Court at 2.15

p.m tomorrow i.e. 21/1/2022 before the trial Court.

6

Writ Petition No.4594 of 2014 was before this Court

on 20/11/2019. An order dated 20/11/2019 was passed by this

Court which reads as under :-

“Coram : A.S. Gadkari, J

Dated : 20/11/2021.

1.

In pursuance of Order dated 24 th September 2019, the

learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Mumbai has forwarded

a report dated 16^th October 2019. It is stated that, there are

in all 158 defendants in the said suit and they are being

represented by different Advocates. Many of the defendants

are filing interim applications in the matter and therefore, it

is very difficult to conclude the hearing of the said suit.

2. It is to be noted here that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in Special Leave to Appeal No. 33118 of 2018 has

categorically directed that the Trial Court to strictly observe

the time which has been granted by the High Court in

concluding the hearing of the said suit.

3. It appears from the record that, th