45 WP6253.2015 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6253 OF 2015 1. ANNASAHEB RAJU KALE 2. SACHIN BALASAHEB KALE 3. SANGITA ANNASAHEB KALE 4. KANTABAI BALASAHEB KALE .. Petitioners (Orig. Defts. No.2,3,4&6) Versus . ASHOK NAMDEO KALE .. Respondent (Orig. Plaintiff) ... Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Ankush N. Nagargoje Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Madhav N. Kalyane h/f. Mr. Rajendra K. Temkar ... CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. Date : 06.08.2026 PER COURT :- 1. The Petitioners raising an exception to Order dated 04.03.2015, rendered by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Sangamner below Exhibit-62 in Regular Civil Suit No.107 of 2009, rejecting request to conduct the cross- examination of the Plaintiff. 2026:BHC-AUG:35131 45 WP6253.2015 -2- 2. The Petitioners are Original Defendants No.2, 3, 4 & 6 and Respondent is Original Plaintiff. 3. The Plaintiff presented a suit for perpetual injunction claiming ownership and possession of the suit land in Gat No. 507 at Pokhari Baleshwar, Sangamner, based on a registered sale deed dated 15 February 2008, alleging subsequent obstruction and encroachment attempts by the adjacent-landowner Defendants. The Defendants appeared and presented written statement denying the claims, asserting that the Plaintiff's vendors had no valid title, the sale deed was nominal without parting possession, and the suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the C.P.C. Following the completion of pleadings and framing of issues, the matter was scheduled for the cross-examination of the Plaintiff on 4 March 2015. On the scheduled date, the Trial Court rejected an adjournment application presented by the Defendants' advocate due to a conflicting Municipal Council meeting and rendered "No Cross" order. Aggrieved by same, the Petitioners are before this Court. 4. Mr. Nagargoje, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the trial court has adopted technical approach and it 45 WP6253.2015 -3- will not subserve ends of justice. As such, the impugned order of refusal to conduct the cross- examination warrants consideration and needs to be set aside thereby permitting the Petitioners to carry out the cross-examination of the Plaintiff in any case failure to conduct cross-examination is inadvertent. 5. Per contra, Mr. Madhav N. Kalyane, learned counsel for the sole Respondent supports the impugned order. 6. Upon considering the rival submissions and perusal of the material on record it indicates that the matter was posted for cross-examination and same was deferred in the next session, wherein the lawyer representing the Petitioners could not attend and eventually conduct the further cross-examination. The right to confront and cross-examine witness is recognised as a fundamental element of procedural fairness and due process. As such, same cannot be tinkered. 7. As such, in the interest of justice, the impugned order dated 04.03.2015, rendered by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Sangamner deserves to be quashed and set aside, accordingly, same is set aside. The Petitioner is permitted to cross examine the Plaintiff. However, the same shall be subject to 45 WP6253.2015 -4- payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Respondent, which is to be deposited within a period of two (02) weeks from today with the trial court. The same shall be condition precedent, and, if not deposited, the order of the trial court would stand revived. 8. Accordingly, in view of above, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) marathe