9-WP-11715-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11715 OF 2026 Prabhakar Menka Shetty ..Petitioner Versus Ajaya Madhukar Mali and Ors …Respondents Mr. Shanay Shah, with Hamza Lakhani, Dhawani Bokari and Kartikay Awasthi, i/b Purnanand & Co, for the Petitioner. Mr. Hafeezar Rahman, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 12. Mr. Omar Khaiyam Shaikh, with Sahil Jain & Z Khan, i/b Vikas Salvi & Associates, for Respondent No.13. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 7th August 2026, passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, whereby Defendant No.2 is permitted to lead evidence by setting aside the no evidence order purportedly passed against Defendant No.2. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner-Defendant No.1 is that the interest of Defendant No.2 is adverse to that of Defendant No.1 and if, at this stage, Defendant No.2 is permitted to adduce evidence, Defendant No.1 would be prejudiced in his defence. ARS 1/2 ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2026.09.11 19:21:09 +0530 9-WP-11715-2026.DOC 4. If that be the case, Defendant No.1 would be entitled to cross- examine Defendant No.2’s witness and Defendant No.1 may also seek permission of the Trial Court to adduce further evidence in his defence, if the evidence adduced by Defendant No.2 has the potentiality to cause prejudice to Defendant No.1. 5. In the event such an Application is filed, the Trial Court shall have due regard to the fact that Defendant No. 2 is permitted to adduce evidence after Defendant No.1 closed his evidence and that the interest of Defendant No.2 is adverse to that of Defendant No.2, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.. 6. Petition disposed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] ARS 2/2