Bombay High Court
BHAUSAHEB SANDU CHAUHAN DIED THROUGH LRS SMT MAMTA BHAUSAHEB CHAUHAN AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
The court held that the petitioners may be granted a further opportunity to cross‑examine the plaintiff’s witness, subject to payment of exemplary costs, thereby setting aside the impugned ‘no cross’ orders.
Summary
The petitioners challenged two orders dated 26‑08‑2025 and 14‑11‑2025 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) in a regular civil suit (No. 5/2020) where a ‘no cross’ order had been passed against them for failing to cross‑examine the plaintiff’s witness. They had earlier obtained a temporary setting aside of a similar order but again failed to conduct cross‑examination, leading the trial court to reaffirm the ‘no cross’ order. The State of Maharashtra, as respondent, argued that the petitioners were given ample opportunity to cross‑examine and had deliberately delayed the proceedings. The High Court examined whether the trial court’s order could be set aside and whether the petitioners could be granted another chance to cross‑examine. It held that fairness required a further opportunity, but imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 25,000 as a condition, and allowed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court's ‘no cross’ order can be set aside despite the petitioners' failure to cross‑examine the plaintiff’s witness.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to another opportunity to cross‑examine the witness.
- Whether imposing exemplary costs is an appropriate sanction for the petitioners' conduct.
- Whether the writ petition seeking relief from the ‘no cross’ orders is maintainable.
Subjects
- no cross order
- cross‑examination
- civil suit
- injunction
- property dispute
- exemplary cost
- writ petition
- trial court
- review
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:4405
(1) 939-wp-681-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 681 OF 2026
BHAUSAHEB SANDU CHAUHAN DIED THROUGH LRS SMT
MAMTA BHAUSAHEB CHAUHAN AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Gaurav L. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mrs. A. S. Mantri, AGP for Respondents-State.
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 28th JANUARY, 2026.
P.C.:-
1. The learned Advocate appearing for petitioners submits that
respondent nos.2 and 3 are formal parties for purpose of present
Writ Petition, as suit is filed by respondent no.1/State of
Maharashtra, in which ‘no cross’ order is passed against
petitioners. In that view of matter, he seeks permission to delete
respondent nos.2 and 3.
2. Permission is granted at the risk of petitioners. Amendment
to be carried out forthwith.
3. The present Writ Petition takes exception to order dated
26.08.2025 passed below Exhibit-104 and order dated 14.11.2025
passed below Exhibit-111 by Civil Judge Senior Division
(Corporation Court), Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar in Regular Civil
Suit No.5/2020, by which ‘no cross’ order is passed against
petitioners.
(2) 939-wp-681-2026.odt
4. Mr. Gaurav Deshpande, learned Advocate appearing for
petitioners would submit that respondent/State of Maharashtra
has filed Regular Civil Suit No.5/2020 seeking declaration of
ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of suit properties. In
that suit, issues were framed and on 09.06.2023, plaintiff’s witness
tendered evidence affidavit. The ‘no cross’ order was passed
against petitioners/defendant nos.3 to 10. On 01.11.2023,
petitioners filed an application for setting aside ‘no cross’ order
below Exhibit-76 and same was allowed. However, subsequently,
again ‘no cross’ order was passed. Meanwhile, defendant no.3
expired and proceeding was pending for bringing legal
representatives on record. The legal representatives of defendant
no.3 appeared in suit and accepted written statement as filed by
original defendant no.3.
5. In aforesaid background, plaintiff filed another application
below Exhibit-104 for setting aside ‘no cross’ order dated
03.05.2025. The Trial Court was pleased to reject application vide
order dated 26.08.2025. The petitioners had filed another
application below Exhibit-111 seeking review/recall of order dated
26.08.2025. However, Trial Court rejected same. Hence, this
petition.
6. Per contra, Mrs. Mantri, learned AGP appearing for
respondent-State supports impugned order. She would point out
(3) 939-wp-681-2026.odt
that twice opportunity was given to petitioners to cross-examine
plaintiff’s witness. Apparently, such opportunity was not taken
and petitioners/defendant nos.3 to 10 have prolonged proceeding in
suit.
7. Having considered submissions advanced by learned
Advocates appearing for respective parties, it is apparent that
plaintiff’s witness was examined in year 2023. The petitioners
failed to cross-examine him. Therefore, ‘no cross’ order was passed
on 09.06.2023 below Exhibit-48. The petitioners sought to set aside
said order. Initially, their prayers was granted, but again they
failed to conduct cross-examination. The conduct of petitioners
cannot be countenanced. However, fact remains that parties are
litigating over rights in respect of immovable properties. Looking
to nature of suit and dispute involved, it is desirable that parties to
the proceeding are given full opportunity to establish their case
during course of trial.
8. In that view of matter, this Court finds that one more
opportunity can be given to petitioners to cross-examine plaintiff’s
witness by imposing exemplary cost. Hence, following order:
ORDER
a. Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (B).
b. The petitioners are permitted to cross-examine plaintiff’s
witness subject to payment/deposit of cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.
(4) 939-wp-681-2026.odt
Twenty Five Thousand only) within period of four weeks from
today.
c. In case of failure to deposit amount, impugned orders in Writ
Petition shall govern proceeding.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/January-2026
Checking your session…