Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7556 (BOM)

ANANDA RABHAJI KOLPE v. SANJAY RAMCHANDRA KOLPE AND OTHERS

WP/1464/2024 · 2025-06-24

Shri Rohit W Joshi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

922-wp-1464-2024 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 922 WRIT PETITION NO. 1464 OF 2024 Ananda S/o. Rabhaji Kolpe Age: 72 years, Occu. Agri, R/o : Hingani Dumala Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar ...Petitioner VERSUS 1. Sanjay S/o. Ramchandra Kolpe Age : 34 years, Occu : Agricultural R/o. Hingani Dumala, Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar 2. Vijay S/o Ramchandra Kolpe Age : 34 Years, Occu. Agri, R/o. Hingani Dumala Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar 3. Ravindra S/o Ramchandra Kolpe Age : 34 years, Occu. Agricultural R/o. Hingani Dumala, Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar ...Respondents ... Mr. R. P. Bhumkar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Sanjay N. Gaikwad h/f. Mr. N. V. Gaware Patil & Mr. S. P. Salgar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. … CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATED : 24th JUNE 2025 JUDGMENT :- 1. Application filed by the petitioner/original defendant in regular Civil Suit No.402 of 2015 for issuing witness summons to cadastral surveyer from the office of Taluka Inspector of Land Records filed vide Exhibit-55 is rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated Narwade 2025:BHC-AUG:16164 922-wp-1464-2024 -2- 22.12.2023 on the ground that the proposed witness was not appointed as Court Commissioner in Regular Civil Suit No.402 of 2015 but he was appointed as Court Commissioner in some other suit. This is the sole reason for rejection of the application. 2. In the considered opinion of this Court, this cannot be a reason for rejecting the witness summons. The witness can be summoned and his evidence can be appreciated as evidence of any other witness and not as Court Commissioner. 3. In view of the aforesaid, order dated 22.12.2023 is quashed. The Trial Court is directed to decide the application afresh in accordance with law. The objection of the respondents that the petitioner/defendant should enter the witness box before examining any witness is kept open. 4. It is also open for the petitioner/defendant to file appropriate application for examining the said witness before examination of defendant himself. 5. Writ Petition is disposed of directing the learned Trial court to decide the application afresh. [ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.] Narwade