901 AO-406-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 406 OF 2024 Shashikala w/o. Shiram Shetty and Others ...Appellants Versus Shri Jagannath H. Shetty (Deceased) and Others ...Respondents WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 633 OF 2025 —————— Mr. Siddharth Wakankar, Ms. Dhanashree Bhate for Appellant. Manvi Sharma, Mr. Harshad Sathe for Appellant in AO No. 633 of 2024 and for Respondent No. 2 in AO No. 406 of 2024. Mr. Abhijit Khade i/b S. P. Dighe for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Mr. Omkar Kulkarni for Respondent No. 6 in AO NO. 406 of 2024. —————— CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 10th July, 2026 P. C. : 1. By order of 3rd July, 2026, this Court noted that there was a direction to the Trial Court by order of 1st April, 2024 to dispose of the suit within a period of six months and accordingly, the trial has commenced before the Trial Court. This Court was therefore, of opinion that the parties can be directed to submit the timelines within which the evidence will be completed. 2. Accordingly, joint pursis has been submitted on behalf of the parties. The pursis states that the Plaintiff will be examining nine Sairaj 1 of 3 2026:BHC-AS:28247 901 AO-406-2024.doc witnesses and the approximate time for conclusion of evidence of the Plaintiff’s witnesses including the cross-examination is four months. 3. Insofar as the Defendant No. 2 is concerned, six witnesses will be examined and the approximate time for concluding the evidence of Defendant No. 2’s witnesses including cross-examination will be three months. The Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 propose to examine four witnesses and timeframe for concluding the evidence of Defendant Nos. 3 to 5’s witnesses including the cross-examination is three months. 4. The Defendant No. 6 propose to examine two witnesses and time frame given is one month including the cross-examination. Insofar as Defendant No. 7 is concerned, the Defendant No. 7 is supporting the Plaintiff and he proposes to examine two witnesses within time frame of one month. 5. The timelines given in the joint pursis is accepted as undertaking given to this Court. It is expected that the parties would strictly adhere to the time frame unless the timelines is extended for reasons beyond the control of the parties. 6. In view of the timeline given, evidence of all the parties would be completed within the period of 12 months. The evidence of Plaintiff No. 1’s witness has commenced. 7. In order to save the judicial time, for recording of cross- examination, the parties propose that the cross-examination be Sairaj 2 of 3 901 AO-406-2024.doc recorded through the Court Commissioner. I am of the view that the Court Commissioner can be appointed so that the timelines can be better adhered. 8. The parties to submit a joint application to the Trial Court for appointment of mutually agreed Court Commissioner on the next date of hearing which is scheduled on 30th July, 2026. The Trial Court to appoint the said Court Commissioner for recording of evidence. In view of the consensus recorded as above, the Appeal from Order No. 406 of 2024 and Appeal from Order No. 633 of 2025 stand disposed of. 9. In view of above, nothing survives for consideration in pending Applications, if any, and the same stand disposed of. [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] Sairaj 3 of 3