wp2892.2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2892 OF 2024 Shaikh Nasiruddin Shaikh Abu Taher VERSUS Sayyed Arif s/o. Sayyed Sharfuddin and others ---- Mr.S.B.Ghatol-Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr.Taher Ali Quadri, Advocate for respondents ---- CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 03, 2026 ORDER :- Heard. 2 In Regular Civil Suit No.224 of 2020 instituted by the petitioner/plaintiff against the respondents for perpetual injunction, during the proceeding of trial the petitioner/plaintiff entered his examination-in-chief in English language. While facing the cross- examination, the petitioner felt that he may not understand correctly what was being posed to him in the cross-examination for the reason that he is a Bengali person and is not much conversant with the Local Language. Hence, an application came to be filed at Exh.52 seeking permission to allow him to engage a qualified Translator merely to translate the questions posed to him in the cross-examination. Said application was opposed by the other side. The trial court after hearing 2026:BHC-AUG:41203 2 wp2892.2024 both the parties pleased to reject the said application vide order dated 19.06.2023. Feeling aggrieved thereby the petitioners are before this court. 3. Heard learned advocates for both sides for quite a long time. 4. Mr.Ghatol-Patil, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the prayer if granted will not cause prejudice to anybody. He would submit that although the petitioner/plaintiff understands Hindi to some extent, however, considering different types of questions or complex questions that may be put to him in the cross- examination, he may not be able to answer them correctly unless having understood the correct context and meaning thereof. He further submits that the application is not filed to mean to produce something in Bengali language in the court to be offered to the other side. He submits that it is only for individual purpose just to understand that what question would be posed to him. He, thus, prays to allow the petition. 5. Mr.Taher Quadri, learned advocate for the respondents opposes the petition. He contends that the petitioner cannot take undue advantage of his illiteracy to local language. He submits that 3 wp2892.2024 the trial court has rightly passed the impugned order observing that the petitioner can understand Hindi and the plaint is filed in English. He submits that the plaintiff is well-conversant with Hindi language. With this, he submits that the petition may be rejected. 6. The only issue before me is that whether the petitioner could be allowed to avail assistance of a Translator. If the assistance is not causing any interference with the trial proceedings nor anything is to come on record out of that translation, in my considered opinion, there cannot be any hindrance in granting such concession to the plaintiff. True that the plaint is filed in English however the reason is that the said plaint is filed by learned advocate for the plaintiff and that too on instructions of the plaintiff. Accordingly, he has verified the plaint. It is also true that the petitioner somewhat understands Hindi. However, his apprehension is that he may not understand correctly the complex questions put to him in Hindi or Marathi to answer those questions. Obviously, the fate of the suit depends upon the answers given by the plaintiff to the cross-examination. To this extent, I find that the petition can be allowed however with some restrictive directions. 7. In view of this, the Writ Petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 19.06.2023 passed by learned 7th Joint Civil 4 wp2892.2024 Judge, Junior Division, Nanded on application Exh.52 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner/plaintiff is permitted to engage a private Translator merely to explain him in his local language the question put to him in the cross-examination. The petitioner/plaintiff will be at risk to understand the question and to answer the same. The petitioner/plaintiff shall not be entitled to take benefit that he was wrongly explained the question if the suit goes against him and he faces any adverse order. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] ……….. KBP