Bombay High Court
SHAIKH NASIRUDDIN SHAIKH ABU TAHERversusJAYSHREE SHAHU KULTHE AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petitioner may engage a private translator to explain cross‑examination questions, subject to restrictive directions, and the trial court’s order rejecting the application is set aside.
Summary
In a regular civil suit for a perpetual injunction, the plaintiff gave his examination‑in‑chief in English but faced cross‑examination in Hindi and Marathi. Being a Bengali who is not fluent in the local language, he applied to the trial court for permission to engage a qualified translator to translate the questions during cross‑examination. The trial court rejected the application, prompting the plaintiff to file a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The learned judge examined the arguments and held that allowing a private translator, provided it does not interfere with the proceedings or become part of the record, would not prejudice either party. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court’s order, permitted the use of a translator with restrictive directions, and disposed of the writ petition in the plaintiff’s favour.
Issues considered
- Whether a party who is not proficient in the language of cross‑examination may be allowed to use a private translator during the trial.
Subjects
- translator
- cross‑examination
- language assistance
- civil procedure
- perpetual injunction
- fair trial
- high court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41202
23-wp11323.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
927 WRIT PETITION NO. 11323 OF 2024
Shaikh Nasiruddin Shaikh Abu Taher
VERSUS
Jayshree Shahu Kulthe And Another
----
Mr.S.B.Ghatol-Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Mr.Taher Ali Quadri, Advocate for respondents
----
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 03, 2026
ORDER :-
Heard.
2 In Regular Civil Suit No.279 of 2020 instituted by the
petitioner/plaintiff against the respondents for perpetual injunction
during the proceeding of trial the petitioner/plaintiff entered his
examination-in-chief in English language. While facing the cross-
examination, the petitioner felt that he may not understand correctly
what was being posed to him in the cross-examination for the reason
that he is a Bengali person and is not much conversant with the Local
Language. Hence, an application came to be filed at Exh.44 seeking
permission to allow him to engage a qualified Translator merely to
translate the questions posed to him in the cross-examination. Said
application was opposed by the other side. The trial court after hearing
2 23-wp11323.2024
both the parties pleased to reject the said application vide order
dated 08.12.2023. Feeling aggrieved thereby the petitioners are
before this court.
3. Heard learned advocates for both sides for quite a long
time.
4. Mr.Ghatol-Patil, learned advocate for the petitioner would
submit that the prayer if granted will not cause prejudice to anybody.
He would submit that although the petitioner/plaintiff understands
Hindi to some extent, however, considering different types of
questions or complex questions that may be put to him in the cross-
examination, he may not be able to answer them correctly unless
having understood the correct context and meaning thereof. He
further submits that the application is not filed to mean to produce
something in Bengali language in the court to be offered to the other
side. He submits that it is only for individual purpose just to
understand that what question would be posed to him. He, thus,
prays to allow the petition.
5. Mr.Taher Quadri, learned advocate for the respondents
opposes the petition. He contends that the petitioner cannot take
undue advantage of his illiteracy to local language. He submits that
3 23-wp11323.2024
the trial court has rightly passed the impugned order observing that
the petitioner can understand Hindi and the plaint is filed in English.
He submits that the plaintiff is well-conversant with Hindi language.
With this, he submits that the petition may be rejected.
6. The only issue before me is that whether the petitioner
could be allowed to avail assistance of a Translator. If the assistance
is not causing any interference with the trial proceedings nor
anything is to come on record out of that translation, in my
considered opinion, there cannot be any hindrance in granting such
concession to the plaintiff. True that the plaint is filed in English
however the reason is that the said plaint is filed by learned
advocate for the plaintiff and that too on instructions of the plaintiff.
Accordingly, he has verified the plaint. It is also true that the
petitioner somewhat understands Hindi. However, his apprehension
is that he may not understand correctly the complex questions put to
him in Hindi or Marathi to answer those questions. Obviously, the
fate of the suit depends upon the answers given by the plaintiff to
the cross-examination. To this extent, I find that the petition can be
allowed however with some restrictive directions.
7. In view of this, the Writ Petition stands allowed. The
impugned order dated 08.10.2023 passed by learned 7 th Joint Civil
4 23-wp11323.2024
Judge, Junior Division, Nanded on application Exh.44 is quashed and
set aside. The petitioner/plaintiff is permitted to engage a private
Translator merely to explain him in his local language the question
put to him in the cross-examination. The petitioner/plaintiff will be at
risk to understand the question and to answer the same. The
petitioner/plaintiff shall not be entitled to take benefit that he was
wrongly explained the question if the suit goes against him and he
faces any adverse order. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed
of
[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
………..
KBP
Checking your session…