1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2838/2009 (Gajanan Mukundrao Devtale Vs. Sanjay Annasaheb Gulhane) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. D.C. Chahande, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 13 , 2009 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. As far as the challenge to the order passed by the trial Court on 23/6/2009 below exh. 92 is concerned, it appears on hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the same, that the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for permission to file documents. The Court rightly observed that the plaintiff and the defendant had both closed the evidence of their sides. The petitioner had not filed the documents before the commencement of the trial and had also not stated any cogent reason for seeking permission to produce and tender the documents when the matter was fixed before the trial Court for arguments. The trial Court further found and rightly so, that grave and serious prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff if the application was allowed at that stage. There is no jurisdictional error in the order dated 23/6/2009 passed 2 by the trial Court below exh. 92. As regards the order dated 23/6/2009 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for withdrawal of his closure pursis and permission to examine the witnesses, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the trial Court had granted permission to the petitioner to be cross-examined by the respondent after the period of almost six years and hence, the petitioner realized after filing of the closure pursis that the same ought not have been filed by the petitioner as it was necessary for the petitioner to examine further witnesses. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary for the trial Court to have granted the prayer made in the application for permission to examine the witnesses. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the applications along with the impugned order, it is clear that the trial Court did not commit any error, much less a jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order dated 23/6/2009 below exh. 91. It is necessary to note that the closure pursis was filed by the petitioner on 18/4/2009. Thereafter the matter was fixed before the trial Court on 23/4/2009 for arguments. The petitioner sought an adjournment and the matter was then listed before the Court on 3/5/2009. On 3/5/2009, the counsel for the respondent argued the matter. After the arguments on the side of the 3 respondent were complete on 3/5/2009, present application was filed by the petitioner on 4/5/2009, seeking permission to examine the witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses. In the aforesaid background, the trial Court thought that the petitioner was merely desirous of protracting the proceedings. It is necessary to note that the petitioner was cross-examined after a period of more than six years in view of the order passed by the trial Court on an application filed by the petitioner. The matter was unnecessarily delayed due to the fault of the petitioner for a period of more than 6 to 7 years. On 18/4/2009, the petitioner was cross-examined and a closure pursis was also filed by the petitioner. In case the petitioner thought that it was necessary for the petitioner to have examined any other witness, an application in that regard ought to have been made immediately after 18/4/2009 or atleast on 23/4/2009 when the matter was posted before the trial Court. However, this was not done and the application was filed after the respondent’s counsel concluded the arguments. In such circumstances, the trial Court though that it was necessary to reject the application filed by the petitioner specially because it was expressed in the application filed by the petitioner that after there was a change in counsel, it was noticed that it was necessary to examine the other witnesses also. Since the prayer in the application could not have been granted merely for the aforesaid reason, no fault can be found with the order 4 passed by the trial Court on 23/6/2009 below exh.91. Both the impugned orders are just and proper and call for no interference. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RMP