Bombay High Court
M/S VINAYAK ENTERPRISES THROU. ABHIJEET A GOSWAMIversusM/S ROMA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. THR. ITS DIRECTORS NIRAJJAN L. HIRANANDANI
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The observation regarding the adjournment application does not warrant interference, but it does not preclude the petitioner from referring to other documents during cross‑examination.
Summary
The petition challenged a Civil Judge’s observation that referring to the contents of an adjournment application during the examination of PW1 would be a waste of time and contrary to the Indian Evidence Act. The petitioner feared that this ruling would also bar reference to 182 documents relied upon in the suit. The High Court examined whether the judge’s observation warranted interference under its writ jurisdiction. It held that the observation concerning the adjournment application does not merit interference, but it does not prevent the petitioner from referring to other documents in cross‑examination. If relevance of such references is questioned, the trial judge may decide it according to law. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed without altering the trial judge’s discretion.
Issues considered
- Whether a trial judge’s observation that reference to the contents of an adjournment application is a waste of time and impermissible under the Indian Evidence Act is amenable to writ jurisdiction interference.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- admissibility of evidence
- adjournment application
- cross‑examination
- Indian Evidence Act
- writ jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:38884
27 wp 10786 of 2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10786 OF 2026
M/s. Vinayak Enterprises ... Petitioner
versus
M/s. Roma Builders Pvt. Ltd. … Respondent
Mr. Karan Bhosale with Mr. O.A.Siddiqui, Ms. Vidya Polmore, Ms. Khushnoma
Malik, for Petitioner.
Ms. Jasmeet Kaur Virdi i/by SHS Chambers for Respondent.
CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 21 SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. A limited challenge in this Petition is to the observations made by the
learned Civil Judge while recording the evidence of PW1, especially
paragraph No.29, whereby while disallowing the questions in relation to the
statements made in the adjournment application, the learned Civil Judge has
observed that, referring those applications to the witness would be a sheer
waste of time and that was not permissible under the provisions of the Indian
Evidence Act.
3. The apprehension of Mr. Siddiqui is that the Petitioner would be
disallowed from referring to 182 documents which the Plaintiff has relied
upon.
4. Having regard to the nature of the observations, by which the Petitioner
SSP 1/2
27 wp 10786 of 2026.doc
is aggrieved, it would be suffice to clarify that so far as the ruling by the
learned Civil Judge that reference to the contents of the adjournment
application is not concerned, the same does not warrant interference in
exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
5. However, those observations will not preclude the Petitioner from
referring to the other documents during the course of the cross-examination of
PW1, and, in the event, those documents are referred to and the aspect of
relevancy of the questions put in relation to those documents arises, the
learned Civil Judge may decide the same in accordance with law.
6. The Writ Petition stands disposed.
( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )
SSP 2/2
Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/09/2026 14:55:57
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.