1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.24 OF 2009 Satish Vithal Shetty. ..Petitioner. V/s. Ranchhoddas K.Rangwala(since deceased) through his legal heirs and Administrator of Prakash Ranchhoddas Rangwala. ..Respondent. Mr.S.D.Mogre for Petitioner. Mr.Prakash Rangwala in person present. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : JANUARY 17, 2009. DATE : JANUARY 17, 2009. DATE : JANUARY 17, 2009. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Respondent, who appears in person. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. The Respondent, who appears in person, waives notice. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith by consent of the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Order passed by the Small Causes Court at Mumbai 2 dated 16th August, 2008 below Exh. 23 in Obstruction Notice No.75 of 2005 in RAE Suit No.2742 of 1983. The substance of the grievance of the Petitioner is that although the trial Court closed the evidence and placed the matter for final argument, as is recorded in Order dated 4th March, 2008, with the change of the Judge, the Plaintiff moved the succeeding Judge for considering Application Exh. 23. The succeeding trial Judge considered that request of the Plaintiff inspite of the objection taken by the Counsel for the obstructionist and has passed order on the said application allowing the application in terms of the impugned order, whereby has issued witness summons to Smt.Madhubala Pratapsingh Ved. . Once the evidence has been closed and matter is placed for final argument by the trial Court by a judicial order, the succeeding trial Court Judge cannot ignore that judicial order, unless it is recalled or set aside by appropriate court. The succeeding trial Court Judge was obliged to proceed with the final argument of the case. That has not happened in the present case. In the circumstances, the order impugned in the present Petition deserves to be set aside on this count alone. It will be open to the Plaintiff to consider to apply before the 3 trial Court Judge to recall the order dated 4th March, 2009 and permit the Plaintiff to examine new witness thereafter. However, if the trial Court Judge were to reject that request, the matter ought to proceed for final argument between the parties. The fact that some application remains pending on the file cannot be the basis to ignore the Order dated 4th March, 2008. Unless that judicial order is set aside or recalled by the appropriate forum, the trial Court Judge is bound to abide by the same and proceed for final argument of the case. 4. This Petition is allowed with liberty to the Plaintiff to apply to the trial Court for recall of Order dated 4th March, 2008 and/or to challenge the said order before appropriate forum, if so advised. That be done within one week from today, failing which, the trial Court Judge shall proceed with the matter for final argument on 23rd January, 2009. Application be filed on or before 22nd January, 2009. All questions are left open to be decided on its own merit in accordance with law. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)