Badshaha Chhabubhai Pathan v. Ravsaheb Jijaba Anbhule And Others

1 WP 11993-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11993 of 2016 Badshah Chhabubhai Pathan, age 58 years occupation Agriculture R/o Burhan Nagar, Ahmednagar Dist. Ahmednagar ...PETITIONER (Original Defendant No. 1)

VERSUS

1.

Ravsaheb S/o Jijaba Anbhule, age 73 years occupation agriculture and business R/o Premdan Chowk, Nagar-Manmad road, Savedi, Ahmednagar.

2.

Bhushan S/o Raosaheb Anbhule, age 40 years occupation agriculture R/o as above. 3.

Sadashiv S/o Vitthal Shelar, age 51 years occupation agriculture and business R/o Shelar Mala, Nagardevle Taluka and Dist. Ahmednagar 4.

Sindhutai W/o Madhukar Shelar, age 46 years occupation agriculture and household R/o as above.

(Original plaintiffs) 5.

Jahur Badshah Pathan, age 27 years occupation Agriculture & business R/o Burhannagar, Ahmednagar Dist. Ahmednagar. 6.

Anjum Badshah Pathan, age 25 years occupation & R/o as above.

7.

Dr. Rajesh Vasantrao Patil, age 49 years occup. agriculture & business R/o Shahu Nagar, Jalgaon Taluka and District Jalgaon. (Original defendants No. 2 to 4) 8.

The Wakf Board, Panchakki, Aurangabad.

...RESPONDENTS

2 WP 11993-2016 Mr V.P. Latange, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr Nitin V. Gaware, Advocate for respondent No. 1 to 4 and 7 Mr S.M. Ganachari, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent No.8 CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE : 15th November, 2017 ORAL ORDER :

In Regular Civil Suit No. 129 of 2015 initiated by the respondents No. 1 to 4, the learned Trial Court passed an order of "No cross-examination" against petitioner/original defendants No.2 and 3, vide impugned order dated October 7, 2016. As such, this petition.

2.

Having heard respective Counsel for some time, Shri Gaware, learned counsel for the original plaintiffs and respondents herein, opposed the claim for setting aside of "No cross-examination" on the ground that the petitioner has prolonged the petition for almost nine years for not genuine cause. According to him, even cause that was cited for non cross-examining the plaintiff, was the pilgrimage of one of the defendants, however, according to him, rest of the defendants and their Counsel were very much available.

3 WP 11993-2016 3.

Be that as it may, since learned Counsel Shri Latange for petitioner assures that in case opportunity is given, without further delay the petitioner will cross-examine the plaintiff. 4.

The order of "No cross-examination" passed by the learned Trial Court on October 7, 2016 in Regular civil suit No. 129 of 2015 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmednagar, is hereby set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only), to which respondents No.1 to 4/Plaintiffs will be entitled to. Amount of costs be deposited before the Trial Court, within four weeks from today, 5.

Petition stands allowed in aforesaid terms.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) pjm