RAJESH VINODHCHAND SHAHversusANIL RAVAJI SHAH AND ORS

                                                                               9493-2025-WP=.doc



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

                                              WRIT PETITION NO. 9493 OF 2025
          Digitally
          signed by
          UDAY
                       Rajesh Vinodhchand Shah                            … Petitioner
UDAY      SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI   JAGTAP       R/at Plot No.8, City Survey No. 6487, Shinganapore
          Date:
JAGTAP    2026.10.09   Road, Phaltan, Tal. Phaltan, Dist. Satara.
          18:02:52
          +0530

                                        Vs.
                       1. Anil Ravaji Shah
                       2. Chandrakanta Anil Shah
                       3. Sachin Anil Shah
                       4. Prachin Alias Sandesh Anil Shah
                       5. Madhuri Anil Shah
                       6. Anjali Anil Shah
                       7. Mayuri Anil Shah
                       8. Pramila Baahubali Mehta
                       9. Vaibhav Subhash Chandra Gandhi
                       10. Srishti Sandesh Vaara
                       11. State Bank of India
                       12. Bank of Maharashtra
                       13. Satara District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd.
                       14. Phaltan Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd.
                       15. Shrimant Maloji Raje Sahakari Bank Ltd.
                       16. The Branch Manager, Satara District Central Co-
                             operative Bank Ltd.
                       17. The Branch Manager, Baramati Co-operative
                             Bank Ltd.




                       Uday S. Jagtap                    1 of 10
                                                        9493-2025-WP=.doc



18. Branch Manager, Satara District Central Co-
      operative Bank Ltd.
19. Branch Manager, Jankalyan Nagari Co-operative
      Pathasanstha Ltd.
20. Branch Manager, IDBI Bank Ltd. Phaltan Branch
21. Branch Manager, IDBI Bank Ltd. Sakharwadi
      Branch. Phaltan
22. Branch Manager, Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.
      Laxminagar, Phaltan
23. Branch Manager Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.
      Ravivar Peth, Phaltan
24. Branch Manager, Primary Teacher Co-operative
      Bank Ltd.
25. Branch Manager, the Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd.
26. The Branch Manager, ICICI Securities Ltd.
27. Branch Manager, Axis Bank Ltd.
28. Branch Manager, Industrial Development Bank of
      India Ltd.
29. Sailaja Vinodchandra Shah
30. Lalitang Vinodchandra Shah.
31. Smita Swapnil Mehta                              … Respondents

                           ………….
Mr. Manoj Patil a/w Kausubh Rayrikar, Akash Murudkar, Shubham
Dhenge for the Petitioner.

Mr. Dhananjay Rananaware a/w Samarth Chavan, Shubham Dhobale for
Respondent No.1.
                            ………….




Uday S. Jagtap                    2 of 10
                                                                9493-2025-WP=.doc




                             CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                             RESERVED ON           : 6th OCTOBER, 2026.
                             PRONOUNCED ON : 9th OCTOBER, 2026.
P. C. :

.         Heard both sides finally.

2.        The petitioner is questioning order dated 21.04.2025 passed below

Exh.1457 in Special Civil Suit No. 22 of 2005 refusing to discard the

answers given to the suggestions and denials.

3.        The petitioner is the original plaintiff, who is prosecuting Special

Civil Suit No. 22 of 2005 for partition, declaration and possession

involving various immovable properties.           The suit is contested by the

respondents.       The issues were settled. The plaintiff led evidence of 3

witnesses who were cross-examined by the respondents.

4.        After recording substantial cross-examination, it was agreed

between the parties to file questionnaire for suggestions and denials. The

suggestions and denials submitted by the respondents were answered by

witnesses of the petitioner.          The first witness of the respondents was

cross-examined and the suggestions and denials in the written form were

filed by petitioner which were answered by the witness. At that stage,

application Exh.1457 was submitted by the petitioner to discard the

written answers given to the suggestions and denials.         It was contested


Uday S. Jagtap                         3 of 10
                                                              9493-2025-WP=.doc



by the respondents. By impugned order it was rejected.

5.       Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure

adopted by the parties for soliciting answers to the suggestions and

denials of the advisory has no legal sanctity. Such a procedure is not

prescribed under the procedural law. Therefore, application Exh.1457

ought to have been allowed. It is further submitted that there can not be

any estoppel against the statute. The suggestions and denials should

have been part of cross-examination.        It is submitted by the petitioner

that the lawyer did not obtain any consent of the petitioner for adopting

the procedure.     It is submitted that petitioner is ready to offer his

witnesses for the cross-examination for recording suggestions and

denials.

6.       Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would

submit that considering the bulky record and lengthy cross-examination

of the witnesses, it was mutually agreed to submit suggestions and

denials in writing.   The purport was to save the time. No prejudice is

caused to the petitioner. It is further submitted that Presiding Officer has

endorsed the answers. The approach of the petitioner is hyper technical.

The application Exh.1457 is after thought and it was preferred to get rid

of damaging answers given by the witnesses. It is further submitted that




Uday S. Jagtap                    4 of 10
                                                                9493-2025-WP=.doc



suit is of 2005 and no interference is called for.

7.       I have considered rival submissions of the parties. The old suit

filed by the petitioner is still at the stage of recording of the evidence of

the respondents.       The petitioner examined 3 witnesses and the first

witness of the respondent is in the witness box.         It transpires from the

record that the oral evidence is bulky.              The affidavit in lieu of

examination-in-chief of the respondent no.1 runs into 76 pages.

Thereafter, further additional affidavit is filed.       The witness is being

cross-examined by the petitioner.

8.       There is no dispute that the witnesses of the petitioner were cross-

examined and thereafter recourse was taken by the parties for

exchanging the questionnaires and the answers to suggestions and

denials in the written form. The suggestions and denials of the petitioner

were answered by the witnesses of the respondents on 17.12.2021. The

procedure adopted by parties is not replacement to cross-examination but

in addition to it. The answers of the respondent no.1 bears endorsement

of the Presiding Officer. Similar course was followed when the plaintiff’s

witnesses were examined. The counsel for the petitioner is unable to

point out violation of any provision of law.

9.       The evidence is bulky. The procedure contemplated by Order XVIII



Uday S. Jagtap                      5 of 10
                                                            9493-2025-WP=.doc



of the Civil Procedure Code has not been deviated as such.      The cross-

examination of the witnesses is already recorded and it is going to be

recorded for the witnesses of the respondents. In order to save the time,

parties have mutually evolved questions – answers format for recording

suggestions and denials. This cannot be said to be substitution of due

procedure of law in recording the evidence. The Presiding Officer has

endorsed on the answers given by the witnesses in writing. Under the

supervision of the Presiding Officer, the procedure is being followed.     I

do not find there is violation of Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC. I find no

substance in the submissions of learned counsel Mr. Manoj Patil that

procedure adopted by the parties lacks legal sanctity.

10.      The petitioner has taken a plea that his advocate did not appraise

him regarding written suggestions and denials and there was no consent.

It is further informed that action has also been taken as against the

lawyer. It is pertinent to note that application Exh.1457 is submitted on

01.04.2025 when answers are given by the respondent no.1 to the

suggestions and denials. My attention is adverted to paragraph no.4 of

the written answers given by the respondent no.1. I find substance in the

grievance of the respondents that when couple of answers are found to

be not suitable to the petitioner, endavour has been made to file

application to discard the procedure and the answers. The application is


Uday S. Jagtap                     6 of 10
                                                             9493-2025-WP=.doc



after thought.

11.      The questionnaire soliciting the answers to suggestions and denials

was submitted under the signature of the lawyer of the petitioner.       The

presumption is that the lawyer is safeguarding the interest of his client.

Therefore, the allegations of the petitioner that the lawyer was not

authorized to undertake such a procedure is misconceived.

12.      The counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Krishna Mandir Trust Versus

State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2020) 9 SCC 356 to buttress that there can

be no estoppel against statute or the Constitution. The principles laid

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be disputed. But I have

already recorded that there is no violation of any statutory provision.

Hence, the judgment will be of no avail.

13.      Further reliance is placed on the judgment of Nazir Ahmad Versus

The King-Emperor (1936) 63 IA 372 to buttress that things must be done

in the manner it is provided, to the exclusion of other methods of

performance. The ratio cannot be made applicable to the present case

because neither is there express provision in CPC nor prohibition for

recording answers to questionnaire of denial and suggestions.




Uday S. Jagtap                     7 of 10
                                                               9493-2025-WP=.doc




14.      The petitioner has also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the matter of Bachhaj Nahar Versus Nilima Mandal & Anr.

(2008) 17 SCC 491.           I have gone through principles laid down in

paragraph No.11. It is observed by Apex Court that High Court had

committed violations of several fundamental rules of civil procedure

which is enumerated in paragraph No. 10 of the said judgment. The facts

are distinguishable. The judgment would not enure to the benefit of the

petitioner.

15.      The counsel for the respondent refers to judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Versus Nanhku & Ors. (2005) 4 SCC

480 to press into service the ratio that the object of prescribing procedure

is to advance the cause of justice. Following is the relevant extract:

         “28. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice.
         The language employed by the draftsman of processual law
         may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object
         of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In
         an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the
         opportunity of participating in the process of justice
         dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific
         language of the statute, the provisions of CPC or any other
         procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner
         which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary
         situations in the ends of justice. The observations made by
         Krishna Iyer, J. in Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar are
         pertinent: (SCC p. 777, paras 5-6)
                 "The mortality of justice at the hands of law troubles a


Uday S. Jagtap                       8 of 10
                                                              9493-2025-WP=.doc



         judge's conscience and points an angry interrogation at the law
         reformer.
               The processual law so dominates in certain systems as to
         overpower substantive rights and substantial justice. The
         humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the
         mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a
         residuary power in judges to act ex debito justitiae where the
         tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable.... Justice
         is the goal of jurisprudence -- processual, as much as
         substantive."


         In the present matter also, both parties have initially agreed for a

particular procedure for recording suggestion and denials of the

witnesses. It has substantiated the cause of justice.

16.      Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the Case of Shreenath & Anr. Versus Rajesh & Ors. (1998) 4 SCC

543. The observations of para number 3 are pressed into service. It can

be said that if the submissions of the petitioners are accepted and

procedure adopted by the parties is held to be illegal by implication the

cause of justice would be frustrated.

17.      The learned Judge has recorded reasons for rejecting application

by impugned order.       It is clarified that the probative value of the oral

evidence and the legality of the procedure can be appreciated during the

course of final hearing. At interlocutory stage, such an application should

not have been filed.      It cannot be overlooked that suit of 2005 is still




Uday S. Jagtap                     9 of 10
                                                              9493-2025-WP=.doc



pending for recording of evidence. No case is made out to cause any

interference.

18.      The Writ Petition is dismissed.

19.      Special Civil Suit No. 22 of 2005 is expedited.



                                               ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )




Uday S. Jagtap                      10 of 10