Bombay High Court

BARKYA RESHMA GAVIT DEAD AND OTHERSversusRAMABAI DHEDYA GAVIT AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court quashed the trial court's order and allowed the recall of the plaintiffs for further cross‑examination on the documents produced after their evidence.

Summary

In a civil suit, the plaintiffs produced certain documents after completing their examination-in-chief, depriving the defendants of an opportunity to cross‑examine them on those documents. The defendants filed an application before the trial court seeking to recall the plaintiffs for further cross‑examination, which the trial court rejected. The defendants then approached this Court by filing a writ petition challenging the rejection. The Court held that the trial court erred in not allowing the recall, as the defendants' right to cross‑examine on the newly produced documents could not be denied. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the trial court's order was set aside, and the defendants were directed to be permitted to cross‑examine the plaintiffs after the defendants' evidence is completed.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to recall the plaintiffs for further cross‑examination of documents produced after their evidence.
Whether a writ petition is maintainable to set aside the trial court's order refusing such recall.

Subjects

cross‑examination
recall of witnesses
civil procedure
evidence
writ petition
injunction
justice

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38681

(1) 13 WP 8685 OF 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

13 WRIT PETITION NO. 8685 OF 2024

BARKYA RESHMA GAVIT DEAD AND OTHERS
VERSUS
RAMABAI DHEDYA GAVIT AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. Jayant R. Shah, Advocate for the Petitioners
Ms. Mrunal Andhare h/f. Mr. A. B. Kale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
…

CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATE : 24.08.2026

PER COURT :-

. In a suit filed by the present respondents/plaintiffs seeking an
injunction against the petitioners/defendants, the pleadings were completed
and the matter was posted for evidence. The plaintiffs entered the witness box
and adduced their evidence. The petitioners/defendants cross-examined the
plaintiffs. Thereafter, the petitioners/defendants commenced their evidence
and entered the witness box for their examination-in-chief. During this period,
an application came to be filed by the plaintiffs/respondents below Exhibit-72
seeking production of certain documents. The Trial Court, after hearing both
the parties, allowed the said application.

2. The petitioners carried the said order in Writ Petition No.14537 of
2019 before this Court. This Court was pleased to reject the said writ petition,
however, granting liberty to the defendants to file an application seeking
permission to recall the plaintiffs for further cross-examination. In view
thereof, the plaintiffs subsequently produced the documents. Pursuant thereto,
(2) 13 WP 8685 OF 2024

the petitioners filed the present application below Exhibit-86 before the Trial
Court, praying for recall of the plaintiffs for further cross-examination. The
said application came to be rejected by the Trial Court vide impugned order
dated 19.04.2024. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. Apparently, the application below Exhibit-86 is not an exhaustive
one. It refers to the directions issued by this Court, whereas no such directions
were issued by this Court. This Court had merely granted liberty to the
petitioners to file an appropriate application. May it be, it is an admitted fact
that the plaintiffs produced certain documents after their evidence was over.
Consequently, the defendants had no occasion to cross-examine the plaintiffs
with regard to the said documents. The defendants are, therefore, entitled to
an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiffs with regard to the said
documents, including their execution and legality.

4. Learned Advocate for the respondents/plaintiffs opposes the
petition contending that the application is absolutely inadequate to make out
a case for recall of the plaintiffs for further cross-examination. She submits
that the Trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned
order.

5. True that the application is vague. However, it is pertinent to note
that the plaintiffs were permitted to produce certain documents after their
examination-in-chief was over. The defendants, therefore, be afforded an
opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiffs with regard to the said documents.
The defendants cannot be deprived of such an opportunity particularly when
the documents were brought on record subsequent to the completion of the
plaintiffs' evidence.
(3) 13 WP 8685 OF 2024

6. In view of the above, and in the interest of justice, I deem it
appropriate to allow the writ petition.

7. The Writ Petition is allowed.

8. The impugned order dated 19.04.2024 passed below Exhibit-86
by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Navapur, in Regular Civil
Suit No.36 of 2012, is quashed and set aside.

9. The application below Exhibit-86 stands allowed.

10. Needless to mention, the further cross-examination of the
plaintiffs, as permitted by this Court, shall be conducted after completion of
the evidence of the defendants.

11. The Writ Petition stands disposed of.

[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
PRW

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…