ANNASAHEB RAJU KALE AND OTHERSversusASHOK NAMDEO KALE

2026:BHC-AUG:35131



                                                                    45 WP6253.2015
                                               -1-

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 6253 OF 2015

              1.     ANNASAHEB RAJU KALE

              2.     SACHIN BALASAHEB KALE

              3.     SANGITA ANNASAHEB KALE

              4.     KANTABAI BALASAHEB KALE                      .. Petitioners
                                                           (Orig. Defts. No.2,3,4&6)


                               Versus

              .      ASHOK NAMDEO KALE                            .. Respondent
                                                                     (Orig. Plaintiff)
                                              ...
              Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Ankush N. Nagargoje
              Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Madhav N. Kalyane h/f. Mr.
              Rajendra K. Temkar
                                              ...


                                          CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                              Date : 06.08.2026


              PER COURT :-
              1.         The Petitioners raising an exception to Order dated

              04.03.2015, rendered by the learned 2 nd Joint Civil Judge Senior

              Division, Sangamner below Exhibit-62 in Regular Civil Suit

              No.107 of 2009, rejecting request to conduct the cross-

              examination of the Plaintiff.
                                                      45 WP6253.2015
                                -2-

2.         The Petitioners are Original Defendants No.2, 3, 4 & 6

and Respondent is Original Plaintiff.



3.         The Plaintiff presented a suit for perpetual injunction

claiming ownership and possession of the suit land in Gat No. 507

at Pokhari Baleshwar, Sangamner, based on a registered sale

deed dated 15 February 2008, alleging subsequent obstruction

and   encroachment      attempts      by   the   adjacent-landowner

Defendants. The Defendants appeared and presented written

statement denying the claims, asserting that the Plaintiff's

vendors had no valid title, the sale deed was nominal without

parting possession, and the suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2

of the C.P.C. Following the completion of pleadings and framing of

issues, the matter was scheduled for the cross-examination of the

Plaintiff on 4 March 2015. On the scheduled date, the Trial Court

rejected an adjournment application presented by the Defendants'

advocate due to a conflicting Municipal Council meeting and

rendered "No Cross" order. Aggrieved by same, the Petitioners are

before this Court.


4.         Mr. Nagargoje, learned counsel for the Petitioners

submits that the trial court has adopted technical approach and it
                                                      45 WP6253.2015
                                 -3-

will not subserve ends of justice. As such, the impugned order of

refusal to conduct the cross- examination warrants consideration

and needs to be set aside thereby permitting the Petitioners to

carry out the cross-examination of the Plaintiff in any case failure

to conduct cross-examination is inadvertent.


5.         Per contra, Mr. Madhav N. Kalyane, learned counsel

for the sole Respondent supports the impugned order.


6.         Upon considering the rival submissions and perusal of

the material on record it indicates that the matter was posted for

cross-examination and same was deferred in the next session,

wherein the lawyer representing the Petitioners could not attend

and eventually conduct the further cross-examination. The right

to confront and cross-examine witness is recognised as a

fundamental element of procedural fairness and due process. As

such, same cannot be tinkered.


7.         As such, in the interest of justice, the impugned order

dated 04.03.2015, rendered by the 2 nd Joint Civil Judge Senior

Division, Sangamner deserves to be quashed and set aside,

accordingly, same is set aside. The Petitioner is permitted to cross

examine the Plaintiff. However, the same shall be subject to
                                                      45 WP6253.2015
                                -4-

payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Respondent, which is to be

deposited within a period of two (02) weeks from today with the

trial court. The same shall be condition precedent, and, if not

deposited, the order of the trial court would stand revived.


8.         Accordingly, in view of above, the Writ Petition stands

disposed of.




                                      (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)

marathe