Bombay High Court

SANJAY AANDRAO MANJAREKARversusSNEHALATA ABHIJIT KAPASE

Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The court held that the post‑closure application could be permitted as it would not cause prejudice and was necessary for adjudicating the dispute.

Summary

The petitioner challenged the order dated 15 April 2026 permitting the respondent to file Application Exhibit‑48 after the closure of evidence. The petitioner argued that filing the application on 27 March 2026, after the plaintiff’s evidence closed on 22 January 2026 and the defendant’s evidence closed on 17 March 2026, was impermissible and would prejudice the defence. The respondent contended that the court commissioner’s report had been denied, necessitating the filing of Exhibit‑48 to prove the measurement reports and that allowing the witness examination would not cause prejudice. The bench held that the proposed witness testimony was essential for deciding the dispute and that no prejudice, perversity, or illegality would result from permitting the application. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, leaving the respondent’s application allowed.

Issues considered

Whether an application filed after the closure of evidence can be entertained without causing prejudice to the opposite party

Subjects

encroachment
removal of encroachment
mandatory injunction
closure of evidence
procedural law
civil procedure
witness examination
court commissioner report

Judgment

                      1                        53-WP-3354-2026 (C)

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

              WRIT PETITION NO. 3354 OF 2026

Sanjay Aandrao Manjarekar          …...Petitioner
     Vs.
Snehalata Abhijit Kapase           …...Respondent

                             ...
Mr. Gaus Nabi Mahat, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Shubham Dhenge, Advocate for the Respondent.
                             ...

                   CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                    DATE : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2026.

ORDER :

.      Heard both sides.

2.     The order dated 15.04.2026 passed below Exhibit-48 is
under challenge.

3.     The grievance of the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner is that the Plaintiff has taken out the Application
Exhibit-48 after closure of the evidence. The Application Exhibit-
48 is an attempt to fill up the lacuna. It is submitted that
sufficient opportunity was given to them to examine the witness
and that it is impermissible to entertain such application at the
fag end of the proceedings.

4.     Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents supports
the impugned order. He would submit that the evidence of the
                        2                        53-WP-3354-2026 (C)

Plaintiff was closed on 22.01.2026. The evidence of the Petitioner-
Defendant was closed on 17.03.2026. The Application Exhibit-48
was filed on 27.03.2026.

5.       As the report prepared by the Court Commissioner was
denied, the Respondent-Plaintiff was required to file Application
Exhibit-48. The suit is for removal of encroachment and
mandatory injunction. The Court Commissioner was appointed,
and measurement reports were produced at Exhibits 22 and 31.
In view of the denial of the reports, it would be necessary to
examine the witness so as to prove the reports and give them
probative value. The Plaintiff has examined only one witness.
Thereafter, the Petitioner-Defendant closed his evidence on
17.03.2026. Immediately thereafter, Application Exhibit-48 was
filed.

6.       I do not find that any prejudice would be caused if the
Respondent is permitted to examine the witnesses. The evidence
of the proposed witness is necessary to decide the controversy
and the law laid down in the Application.

7.       I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned
orders.

8.       Writ Petition is disposed of.


                                [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]
Suresh

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…