Haijyotsingh Guljarsingh Bhullar v. Sultanpure Textiles Mills Thr Its Proprietor And ORS

50-WP-16883-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

MJ Jadhav CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 16883 OF 2024 Haijyotsingh Guljarsingh Bhullar ... Petitioner Vs.

Digitally signed by MANGALTAI JAYWANT JADHAV Date:

2025.08.08 12:45:43 +0530 Sultanpure Textiles Mills Thr. Its Proprietor And Ors.

... Respondents MANGALTAI JAYWANT JADHAV Mr. G. A. Patil for the Petitioner.

Mr. Omkar Nagwekar for the Respondent.

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATED : 5th AUGUST 2025 ORDER:

1.

This petition is filed to challenge the order rejecting the defendant no.3's application for recording cross-examination through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without any valid reason, the application is rejected. 2.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff points out that the reasons and the medical report does not indicate that the petitioner is unable to travel for the purpose of recording cross-examination. He submits that the application was filed in June 2024, based on the medical reports of June 2024. He submits that at present there is no ground Page no. 1 of 2

50-WP-16883-2024.doc to permit the petitioner to record cross-examination through video conferencing. He further submits that the learned Judge has rejected the application also on the ground that due to technical difficulties it would not be possible to record the cross-examination through video conferencing.

3.

A perusal of the medical papers do not indicate that the petitioner is unable to travel for the purpose of recording crossexamination. Hence, I do not see any reason to permit the petitioner to appear through video conferencing.

4.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff on instructions submits that the fresh application filed by the plaintiff for recording evidence through video conferencing was only on the ground that this petition had remained pending and the suit was delayed. He therefore on instructions seeks leave to withdraw his application. Leave granted. The Application is disposed of as withdrawn.

5.

The Writ Petition is therefore rejected.

6.

It is clarified that since suit is of the year 2014, the parties shall co-operate for early disposal of the suit and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments.

(GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 2 of 2