Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1213 (BOM)

Geeta Kamkar v. Ramadevi Korepali

2023-06-05

M.S.KARNIK

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dtd. 18/4/2023 passed by the trial Court rejecting the application made by the petitioner-accused for adjournment which had the effect of closing the defence evidence of the petitioner. 3. Having perused the impugned order, I do find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has been casual in her approach in the matter of filing the affidavit-in-evidence. A request was made for adjournment on 18/4/2023 for the reason that the affidavit-in-evidence could not be completed as the accused had to obtain certified documents from the bank on which the accused wants to rely. The trial Court passed the following Order:- 'Final opportunity was given on 24/1/2023. Even thereafter on account of medical grounds, opportunity was given on costs. Despite that no AIE is filed on the pretext obtaining documents. I do not see bonafide as the accused had sufficient time to obtain such documents. Hence, rejected. Defence evidence stands closed.' 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact, the petitioner had prayed for a week's time to file the affidavit-in-evidence. The documents which the petitioner wanted to rely upon were applied for some time in March 2023 and were made available to the petitioner on 26/4/2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no intention to protract the proceedings. Though I do find some substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent and even the approach of the trial Court cannot be faulted, in the interest of justice and as now the documents are available post the passing of the impugned order, only by way of an indulgence, the petition deserves to be allowed, subject, however, to costs. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a categoric statement that affidavit-in-evidence will be positively filed on or before 12/6/2023 with an advance copy to the respondent. It is made clear that if the affidavit-in-evidence is not filed on or before 12/6/2023, the impugned order shall stand. 6. The impugned order is set aside subject to payment of cost of ?2, 000/- by the petitioner to the respondent which shall be a condition precedent for filing the affidavit-inevidence of the petitioner on record. 7. The petition is disposed of.