Rajaram Nathu Jadhav v. Ganpat Nathu Jadhav And ORS

Santosh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 553 OF 2025 Rajaram Nathu Jadhav

...Petitioner

Versus

Ganpat Nathu Jadhav and ors.

...Respondents

SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh, a/w Sachin Gite, for the Petitioner. SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2025.01.17 17:44:32 +0530

CORAM:

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

DATED :

14th JANUARY, 2025 ORDER:- 1.

The petitioner - defendant No.5 has preferred this application assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 6th November, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chandwad, on an application (Exhibit143) preferred by defendant No.4 to set aside the order passed by the Civil Court on 26th November, 2019 forfeiting the right of defendant No.5 to adduce the evidence, whereby the said application came to be rejected.

2.

On 26th November, 2019, the trial court was persuaded to close the evidence of defendant No.5 as it appeared that defendant No.5 was not interested in adducing the evidence. Thereafter, defendant Nos.1 to 4 adduced their evidence. After defendant Nos.1 to 4 closed their evidence, defendant No.5 1/3

preferred the instant application asserting that defendant No.5 could not adduce the evidence on account of unavoidable circumstances and defendant No.5 would suffer prejudice if he is not permitted to adduce the evidence.

3.

Ms. Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, would urge that defendant No.5 had ascribed justifiable reason for not adducing the evidence and, therefore, the learned Civil Judge could not have rejected the application to set aside the order closing the evidence of defendant No.5. 4.

At the first blush, the submission appears innocuous and attractive. Ordinarily, the Court would permit a party to adduce evidence by setting aside the order forfeiting the right of such party to adduce evidence, even if there is some delay, inadvertence or indolence on the part of such party. However, the facts of the instant case are quite distinct. 5.

On 24th October, 2019, the trial court had passed a specific order to the effect that, since defendant No.5 was supporting the plaintiff, defendant No.5 shall adduce evidence first. Defendant No.5 did not adduce the evidence and, therefore, the Court was constrained to close the evidence of defendant No.5. Consequently, defendant Nos.1 to 4, who are the contesting defendants, adduced their evidence. In fact, the 2/3

resistance to the instant application primarily came from defendant Nos.1 to 4.

6.

Permitting defendant No.5, who is supporting the plaintiff, to adduce the evidence at this stage, after defendant Nos.1 to 4, the contesting defendants, have adduced their evidence, would, in effect, reopen the evidence for the plaintiff as an endeavour would be made to fill in the lacuna in the evidence of the plaintiff through the evidence of defendant No.5. It is for this reason, the trial court had prescribed the order in which the defendants should adduce their evidence. The fact that the instant application came to be filed after almost five years of closure of the evidence of defendant No.5 (and the defendant Nos.1 to 4 closed their evidence) also bears upon the genuineness of the reasons ascribed in the application and the bona fide of defendant No.5.

7.

In these circumstances, the impugned order does not warrant any interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. 8.

Petition thus stands dismissed.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 3/3