WP. 2146, 2147-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 2147 OF 2011 AND CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 2146 OF 2011 Dhirajlal Raishi Chheda ... Petitioner Vs. Raishi Shivji Chheda ... Respondent *** Mr. J. K. Tripathi i/b M/s. Sawankar & Co., for the Petitioner. Mr. J. G. Shukla a/w Y. J. Ghoghan i/b G. H. Shukla & Co., for the Respondent. CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : APRIL 27, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed below Exh. 173 in R.A. D. Suit No. L. E. Suit No. 141/173/2008 (in W.P. No. 2146/2011) and Exh. 132 in R. A. D. Suit No. 720/1334/2004 (in WP No. 2147/2011). 2. Brief facts are as under- . There are disputes between the elder son who is pertitioner and the father who is respondent, herein. It is an admitted position that WP. 2146, 2147-11 - 2 - several suits have been filed by the elder son against his father. Despite several attempts being made by the number of mediators, the dispute between them could not be resolved. All these suits are expedited since respondent is almost 89 years of age. One suit is pending in this Court wherein evidence is led on day to day basis. Similarly, in respect of suits pending in the Small Causes Court, orders have been passed, directing the Small Causes Court to record the evidence on day to day basis. Even in the suit which is pending in the City Civil Court, schedule is fixed for recording of evidence. In the present case, cross-examination of the petitioner was going on and since the respondent’s counsel could not remain present on one occasion, an order of “no-cross” was passed. Thereafter an application was made for recalling the said order. The said order was recalled after giving warning to the respondent’s advocate and also imposing cost of Rs.500/-. Thereafter again an order of “no-cross” was passed. The applications Exh. 132 and Exh. 173 in two different suits were filed for recalling the said order. The order is again recalled. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court was not entitled in law to recall the said order while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 C.P.C., particularly when there was an express provision in the C.P.C. which lays down the circumstances under WP. 2146, 2147-11 - 3 - which order of recalling, if any, could be passed. He has relied on number of judgments of this Court, other High Courts and the Supreme Court. Secondly, it is submitted that though on the earlier occasion a specific warning was given to the respondent’s advocate that if he remains absent by the next date, a direction would be given for closing the cross-examination. Yet, in spite of specific warning being given, again on the second occasion, the order has been recalled. Thirdly, it is submitted that several applicatons have been filed by the respondent as a part of the dialatory tactics while protracting the suits, though hearing of the suits is expedited. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has given list of all the suits which are filed by the petitioner herein and by the respondent also against the petitioner. It is submitted that in view of the directions which are given from time to time, these suits are being heard simultaneously in three courts and though the petitioner has engaged three set of advocates in the High Court, City Civil Court and the Small Causes Court, the respondent is represented by only one advocate, as a result of which it becomes difficult to remain present at 3 different places at the same time. It is submitted that the trial Court, therefore, after taking into consideration these facts, had recaled the order of “no-cross”. WP. 2146, 2147-11 - 4 - 3. After having heard both the counsel at length, in my view, it is not necessary to interfere with the interlocutory order passed by the trial Court. It is an admitted position that the suits which are filed by both the parties aginst each other are simultaneously being heard in three different courts and that was one of the reasons why respondent’s advocate could not remain present. The trial Court has taken into consideration this fact and has recalled its order. There cannot be dispute regarding ratio of the judgments, on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But there cannot be any straight jacket formula which can be used for the purpose of exercising the power under Section 151 C. P. C. In my view, said power has been rightly exercised in this case, and therefore, it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned orders. However, in order to ensure that in future there is no conflict of dates between the different suits which are filed, the City Civil Court and the Small Causes Courts shall coordinate its dates with the dates which are given by this Court in order to ensure that there is no conflict as a result of these dates and the respondent’s advocate is prevented from appearing in the lower Court. At the same time, the respondent’s advocate also shall complete his cross examination as expeditiously as possible and if it is found that cross examination WP. 2146, 2147-11 - 5 - continues on irrelevant grounds, the trial Court is always at liberty to curtail the cross, in accordance with law, as per the powers which are vested in the trial Court. The learned counsel for the respondent after taking instructions submits that he would be in a position to complete cross of the petitioner in roughly 10-15 dates. With these directions, writ petition is disposed of. 4. Any adverse orders which are passed during pendency of the petitions may be recalled, if an application is so filed by the respondent within 6 weeks from today and those applications may be heard and decided on merits. [ V. M. KANADE J.]