SCA/13404/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13404 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ========================================================= VIJAYBHAI KALUBHAI MANDORA - Petitioner(s) Versus DAKSHABEN W/O VIJAYBHAI MANDORA - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HIMANSU M PADHYA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR MEHUL RATHOD for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 20/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Shri Mehul Rathod, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent. Shri Mehul Rathod, learned advocate states that he will be filing the Vakalatnama of respondent during SCA/13404/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT the course of the day. With the consent of learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today. 2. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Judge dated 24.9.2008 passed below Exh.144 in Hindu Marriage Petition No.23 of 2007 by which the learned trial court has dismissed the said application submitted by the petitioner permitting him to examine two witnesses namely (1) Amratbhai Arvindbhai Padhiar and (2) Pravinkumar Punjalal Prajapati. 3. Shri Himanshu Padhya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that in fact the name of Arvind Mafatlal Padhiar was by mistake stated to be Amratbhai Arvindbhai Padhiar in the impugned application. However, he has submitted under the instructions from the petitioner that in fact the petitioner wants to examine Arvind Mafatlal Padhiar and not Amratbhai Arvindbhai Padhiar as mentioned in the application Exh.144. Shri Himanshu Padhya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated at the bar that, except aforesaid two witnesses, the petitioner does not want to examine any other witness. He has SCA/13404/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT also further submitted that both these witnesses be directed to remain present before the trial court 28.11.2008 for examining them. It is also further submitted that, so far as Arvindbhai Padhiar is concerned, his examination in the form of affidavit has been filed and that now he is only to be cross- examined. Under the circumstances, and in view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is hereby quashed and set aside, and the petitioner is permitted to examine the aforesaid two witnesses (1) Arvindbhai Mafatlal Padhiar and (2) Pravinkumar Punjalal Prajapati and their depositions may be recorded on 28.11.2008 the date which is convenient to the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. As stated by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioner except the aforesaid two witnesses, petitioner does not want to examine any other witnesses. 4. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted. ( M.R. SHAH, J. ) syed/