Bombay High Court
PRABHAKAR MENKA SHETTYversusAJAYA MADHUKAR MALI AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition challenging the order permitting Defendant No.2 to lead evidence was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Defendant No.1, challenged an order dated 7 August 2026 of the City Civil Court that allowed Defendant No.2 to lead evidence. The petitioner argued that Defendant No.2's interests were adverse to his own and that permitting such evidence would prejudice his defence. The court noted that if Defendant No.2 were to adduce evidence after Defendant No.1 had closed his case, Defendant No.1 would be entitled to cross‑examine and could seek permission to lead further evidence. The trial court was directed to consider the adverse interests and the timing of evidence when making any further orders. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and disposed of the matter.
Issues considered
- The propriety of allowing Defendant No.2 to adduce evidence when his interests are adverse to Defendant No.1
- Whether such permission would prejudice Defendant No.1's right to a fair defence
Subjects
- evidence
- adverse interest
- cross‑examination
- civil procedure
- writ petition
- trial court
Judgment
9-WP-11715-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11715 OF 2026
Prabhakar Menka Shetty ..Petitioner
Versus
Ajaya Madhukar Mali and Ors …Respondents
Mr. Shanay Shah, with Hamza Lakhani, Dhawani Bokari and Kartikay
Awasthi, i/b Purnanand & Co, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Hafeezar Rahman, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 12.
Mr. Omar Khaiyam Shaikh, with Sahil Jain & Z Khan, i/b Vikas Salvi
& Associates, for Respondent No.13.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 7 th August
2026, passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, whereby Defendant
ARUN
No.2 is permitted to lead evidence by setting aside the no evidence
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Digitally signed by
order purportedly passed against Defendant No.2.
ARUN RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.09.11
19:21:09 +0530
3. The grievance of the Petitioner-Defendant No.1 is that the interest
of Defendant No.2 is adverse to that of Defendant No.1 and if, at this
stage, Defendant No.2 is permitted to adduce evidence, Defendant No.1
would be prejudiced in his defence.
ARS 1/2
9-WP-11715-2026.DOC
4. If that be the case, Defendant No.1 would be entitled to cross-
examine Defendant No.2’s witness and Defendant No.1 may also seek
permission of the Trial Court to adduce further evidence in his defence,
if the evidence adduced by Defendant No.2 has the potentiality to cause
prejudice to Defendant No.1.
5. In the event such an Application is filed, the Trial Court shall have
due regard to the fact that Defendant No. 2 is permitted to adduce
evidence after Defendant No.1 closed his evidence and that the interest
of Defendant No.2 is adverse to that of Defendant No.2, and pass an
appropriate order in accordance with law..
6. Petition disposed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
ARS 2/2
Checking your session…