Bombay High Court

SHAIKH NASIRUDDIN SHAIKH ABU TAHERversusSAYYED ARIF SAYYED SHARFUDDIN AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

A party may be permitted to use a private translator to understand cross‑examination questions provided it does not affect the record or prejudice the opposite side.

Summary

In a regular civil suit for perpetual injunction, the plaintiff, a Bengali who gave his examination‑in‑chief in English, sought permission to use a qualified translator to understand questions during cross‑examination, fearing he might not grasp Hindi or Marathi queries. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the plaintiff understood Hindi and the pleadings were in English. The plaintiff appealed via a writ petition, arguing that translation would not prejudice the respondents and was necessary for accurate answers. The High Court examined whether allowing a translator would interfere with the trial or affect the record. Finding no such interference, the Court allowed the petition with directions that the translator’s assistance be limited to personal comprehension and not affect the official record. Consequently, the trial court’s order was set aside and the plaintiff was permitted to engage a private translator, subject to the risk of adverse consequences if the translation was erroneous.

Issues considered

Whether a party may be permitted to use a private translator to understand questions during cross‑examination.
Whether such assistance would prejudice the opposite party or interfere with the trial proceedings.
Whether the trial court's rejection of the translator application was justified.

Subjects

translator assistance
cross‑examination
language barrier
civil procedure
perpetual injunction
writ petition
trial court order
judicial discretion

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41203



                                                                       wp2892.2024.odt


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 2892 OF 2024

                            Shaikh Nasiruddin Shaikh Abu Taher
                                           VERSUS
                        Sayyed Arif s/o. Sayyed Sharfuddin and others

                                               ----
            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.224 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.52 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                         wp2892.2024



both the parties pleased to reject the said application vide order

dated 19.06.2023.     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                          wp2892.2024



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 19.06.2023 passed by learned 7 th Joint Civil
                                     4                         wp2892.2024



Judge, Junior Division, Nanded on application Exh.52 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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…