1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1682 OF 2010 M.Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner v/s Shri Munir Ebrahim Chinoy & ors. ... Respondents Mr.V.B.Naik i/by M/s.Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the petitioner. Mr.G.S.Godbole i/by Mr.S.S.Kanetkar for respondents. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 9TH MARCH, 2010 P.C.: 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in this case is that the procedure adopted by the Trial Court while passing the impugned orders indicates that the Trial Court has flouted the rules of natural justice, only to ensure that the suit is disposed of immediately. 3. A few facts which are required to be stated to appreciate the dispute between the parties are as follows:- 2 Special Civil Suit No.203 of 1994 was filed by the petitioner before the Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Pune. Interim relief was granted to the petitioner. Issues were framed in 1996. Thereafter an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief was filed by the petitioner’s witness on 26.8.2008. Cross- examination of this witness of the petitioner commenced on 2.12.2008. A miscellaneous application was filed on 12.12.2008 for transfer of the matter to another Judge. That was refused by the District Judge and the writ petition challenging that order was also dismissed by this Court on 16.11.2009. On 18.1.2010, the cross-examination of the petitioner’s witness was partially complete. On 25.1.2010 the learned Judge was not available and, therefore, the matter was adjourned to 5.2.2010. Since the witness was not present, the matter was adjourned to the next day. He did not attend the Court even on the next day and, therefore, on 6.2.2010 the Trial Court has closed the evidence of the petitioner. An application was filed to recall the order dated 6.2.2010. That application was rejected on 25.2.2010 as it was strongly opposed by the defendants. An application was filed on 26.2.2010 on behalf of the petitioner for staying the proceedings as the petitioner wished to approach this Court. That application was rejected on the same day and hence the present petition. 3 4. The matter was mentioned on 3.3.2010 when the Trial Court was directed not to pronounce the judgment in the matter and the writ petition was adjourned till today. 5. It appears from the record that the Trial Court has, in its haste to complete the trial, which has been pending from 1994, has ignored the fact that the parties have not advanced their arguments in the matter. Even assuming the order directing that the plaintiff’s evidence was completed is correct, the Trial Court ought to have permitted the parties to argue the matter. It must be borne in mind that the rules of natural justice cannot be sacrificed only because of the compulsion to decide matters expeditiously. The course of events seen in this case indicates that on 25.2.2010 when the matter was adjourned for final arguments to 26.2.2010 an application for stay was filed by the petitioner on that day which was rejected. However, it is not clear as to why the learned Judge deduced that both parties did not want to argue the matter. There is no application or purshis on record indicating that the parties did not wish to argue the matter. If indeed the learned Judge had decided to deliver the judgment without hearing the arguments because the parties did not want to argue, there ought to have been some purshis on record indicating that the parties did not wish to exercise their right to argue the matter. 4 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by counsel, the orders passed on 26.2.2010 on Exh. Nos.187 and No.1 are set aside. 7. I am informed that the matter has now been posted on 15.3.2010. The parties will advance their arguments on that day and/or any other day the trial Court may require them to do so. The Trial Court shall consider the arguments and will take into account the evidence that is already on record, while deciding the suit. 8. The Trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and in any event by 31.3.2010. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. 10. Rule made absolute accordingly. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. ..... 5