Reached Daily Limit?

Explore a new way of legal research!

Click Here
Bombay High CourtIndian Cases

Shridhar S/O Ramchandra Alsi vs Shamrao Vithoba Bhonsale And Ors. on 2 September 1987

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Bombay High Court
Shridhar S/O Ramchandra Alsi vs Shamrao Vithoba Bhonsale And Ors. on 2 September, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1988(1)BOMCR635
JUDGMENT

A.A. Desai, J.

1. The only grievance tried to be made out in this revision is regarding non-compliance of Rule 11 of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to Mr. Bapat, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, that in view of the provisions laid down in the said rule, the Court was under obligation to record the answer of a question which has been rejected by him on an objection raised by the other side.

2. According to the applicant-plaintiff they filed the suit for ejectment and possession against the non-applicants. After the closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, Shamrao Bhonsale entered into the witness box on behalf of the defendant. While cross-examining, this witness was put to a particular question, which was objected by the defendant on the ground of admissibility as the same is beyond the pleading of the parties. The learned trial Court upheld the objection and rejected the question put by the plaintiff. The learned trial Court in the deposition recorded the question, the objection to the question and his decision on the question. According to Mr. Bapat, though the question was disallowed on the objection, it was necessary for the trial Court to record the answer. Rule 11 of Order 18 was pressed into service by Mr. Bapat which reads as under:

“Where any question put to a witness is objected to by a party or his pleader, and the Court allows the same to be put, the Judge shall take down the question, the answer, the objection and the name of the person making in it, together with the decision of the Court thereon.”
After reading this plain provision, it is explicitly clear that the Court is under objection to record the answer when he rejects the objection raised to the question and allows the question to be put to the witness. According to me, this rule does not suggest that it is obligatory on the part of the trial Court to record the answer even when the question is rejected on the objection of the other side. As such, in my opinion, the grievance tried to be made out by the applicant is totally unfounded. Mr. Bapat invited my attention to the decision reported in Manoramabai w/o Bapurao and others v. Satyabhamabai w/o Bapurao, 1968 Maharashtra Law Journal 608. After carefully going through the text of the judgment, according to me, it does not advance in any manner the case of the applicant/plaintiff as canvassed before me. Even otherwise nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the plaintiff applied before the trial Court for recording answer of a question which was rejected.

3. I, therefore, do not find any substance to interfere at this stage.

4. The revision is wholly without any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. Under the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.