ASHISH SHRIVASTAVA AND ORSversusM/S VISHRUT ENTERPRISES PVT LTD KNOWN AS M/S VISHRUT INFOTECH PVT LTD

                                                                                -WP-17549-2025.DOC

                                                                                     Arun Sankpal



                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                        WRIT PETITION NO. 17549 OF 2025


                      Ashish Shrivastava & Ors                                    ..Petitioners
                            Versus
                      Vishrut Enterprises Pvt Ltd & Ors                        …Respondents

                      Mr. Onkar Gupte, for the Petitioners.
                      Mr. Suresh Sabrad, with Amey C Sawant, Neha Parte and Pratik
                            Sabrad, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

                                                    CORAM:       N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                    DATED :      8th JANUARY 2026


                      ORDER:



                      1.      The Petitioners-Defendants have preferred this Petition assailing

                      the order dated 8th October 2025 whereby the evidence of the Petitioners

                      was closed, and the subsequent order dated 3rd November 2025 whereby

                      the Applications preferred by Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, and

ARUN
                      the order dated 16th October 2025 whereby an Application preferred by
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL

Digitally signed by
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
                      the Petitioner No.4, for recall of the said order dated 8 th October 2025,
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.01.16
10:32:58 +0530


                      were also rejected.

                      2.     The learned Civil Judge was persuaded to close the evidence of

                      the Petitioners-Defendants as the Defendants were resorting to the

                      dilatory tactics to delay the disposal of the suit, which has been directed
                                                          1/6
                                                           -WP-17549-2025.DOC

to be decided by this Court in a time-frame. In the pursis which was filed

on behalf of the Petitioners-Defendants, the Defendants had indicated

the availability of two Defendants i.e., Defendant Nos. 22 and 24 on 15 th

October 2025 for the cross-examination and stated that there was no

confirmation regarding the availability of the other Defendants for cross-

examination on commission. Thus, the learned Civil Judge allowed the

cross-examination of Defendant Nos. 22 and 24 and closed the evidence

of other Defendants as they did not offer themselves for cross-

examination.

3.     The Petitioners-Defendants whose evidence was closed filed

applications for recall of the said order. The learned Civil Judge rejected

those applications by ascribing detail reasons. The various applications

filed by the Defendants, including the permission to file the additional

Written Statement, setting aside the no-cross order, to revoke the order

of cross-examination of the Defendants witnesses on commission,

permission to substitute the Affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief

already filed on behalf of the Defendants, were adverted to by the

learned Civil Judge. On a cumulative analysis, the learned Civil Judge

declined to recall the order of closing the evidence of the Petitioners-

Defendants by observing that they were resorting to dilatory tactics.

4.     Being    aggrieved,   the   Petitioners   have   invoked   the   writ

jurisdiction.


                                     2/6
                                                            -WP-17549-2025.DOC

5.       Mr. Gupte, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners-Defendants

would submit that the Defendants have been deprived of a valuable right

to adduce evidence. The trial Court has proceeded to close the evidence

of the Defendants without providing an effective opportunity of hearing

to them. It was submitted that though the Petitioners-defendants had

then contended that there was no confirmation about the availability of

those Defendants for cross-examination, yet, the Defendants are now

ready to offer themselves for the cross-examination, on a date as may be

directed by the Court. Thus, the impugned orders be quashed and set

aside.

6.       In opposition to this, Mr. Suresh Sabrad, the learned Counsel for

the Plaintiffs, took the Court through the developments in the instant

suit and the various strategies adopted by the Defendants to delay the

disposal of the suit. In addition to the applications referred to by the trial

Court in the impugned order, Mr Sabrad invited attention of the Court to

the applications filed on behalf of the Defendants to frame 10 additional

issues; which came to be rejected by an order dated 27 th October 2025,

the applications to recall the witnesses filed on behalf of the Defendants

during the period of 7th November 2025 to 12th November 2025; which

were also rejected, and the failure of the Defendants to advance

arguments though the Suit was listed for final arguments on six dates.

Mr. Sabrad further submitted that the trial Court was constrained to


                                     3/6
                                                           -WP-17549-2025.DOC

hear the final arguments on behalf of the Plaintiff and, after conclusion

of the oral submissions, the Plaintiffs have also filed written submissions.

7.       Mr Sabrad would urge that, having regard to the conduct of the

Defendants as manifested by the multiple efforts on the part of the

Defendants to derail the trial in the suit, the impugned orders do not

warrant interference at this stage.

8.       Ordinarily, the Court leans in favour of providing an efficacious

opportunity of hearing to the parties though there is an element of delay

or lapse on the part of the parties. The lapses and defaults are condoned

so as to advance the cause of substantive justice. In the case at hand,

however one gets an impression that the Petitioners and other

Defendants have adopted various litigative stratagem to delay the

disposal of the suit.

9.       Initially an endeavour was made to file additional Written

Statement after filing the Written Statement on record. The said

application was rejected by this Court and the Supreme Court declined

to entertain the Special Leave Petition against the order passed by this

Court. Thereafter, in view of default on the part of the Defendants, their

right to cross-examine Plaintiffs witnesses was forfeited by the trial

Court.     This Court permitted the Defendants to cross-examine the

Plaintiffs witnesses and adduce the evidence in the rebuttal. It is also

imperative to note that as many as 26 witnesses were sought to be


                                      4/6
                                                         -WP-17549-2025.DOC

examined by the Defendants. Out of them 20 witnesses have already

been examined. The learned Civil Judge has noted the manner in which

the recording of evidence was sought to be thwarted by seeking recall of

the order directing recording the cross-examination of the Defendants

witnesses, on commission.

10.    Despite direction by the trial Court, the Defendants did not offer

themselves for cross-examination before the Court Commissioner. Thus,

when the trial Court ordered the Defendants to indicate there

availability for cross-examination, the Petitioners-Defendants had the

audacity to state that they cannot give confirmation about their

availability for cross-examination. In these circumstances, the learned

Civil Judge was fully justified in permitting the cross-examination of the

two witnesses who offered themselves for cross-examination on the

specified dates. As the Defendants chose not to confirm their availability

for being cross-examined, in the backdrop of the dilatory conduct

manifested by the Defendants, in general, the learned Civil Judge closed

the evidence of the Defendants who did not offer themselves for cross-

examination.

11.    The subsequent events in the nature of the applications to frame

10 additional issues, recall the witnesses, and failure to advance final

arguments, further exacerbates the situation and lends heft to the

submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff that the entire approach of the


                                   5/6
                                                           -WP-17549-2025.DOC

Defendants has been actuated by a design to delay the disposal of the

suit.

12.     Moreover, it      is not the case that the Defendants have not

adduced evidence. As many as 20 witnesses have already been examined

on behalf of the Defendants. In the peculiar facts of the case, this Court

is of the view that no injustice would be occasioned even if the

Petitioners-Defendants right to adduce evidence is forfeited.

13.     For the forgoing reasons, at this stage, when the suit is on the

verge of final disposal, this Court does not find any justifiable reason to

entertain the Petition.

14.     Hence, the Petition stands dismissed.




                                                [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                                     6/6