IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.
SECOND APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2026
(AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.)
Disposed on 23.04.2026
MRS. SHEETAL SATISH SAWANT … APPELLANT
VERSUS
- SATISH GUNAJI SAWANT … RESPONDENT
Civil Procedure Code,1908- Section 100- Substantial Question of Law – If there is a breach of the principles of natural justice, a substantial question of law would arise.
Held
When the trial Court was aware that the Respondent was not represented by a lawyer, there was no justification to record the deposition of PW1 on the same day. Further, after only one adjournment, the trial Court proceeded to record the depositions of PW2 and PW3 and declared the proceedings ex parte.
More importantly, even during the pendency of the application for setting aside the ex parte order, the trial Court proceeded with final arguments. This approach clearly deprived the Respondent of an effective opportunity to participate in the proceedings.
The trial Court has thus adopted a mechanical approach, which is impermissible, particularly in matrimonial disputes. The Respondent ought to have been granted an opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses of the Petitioner, followed by a meaningful opportunity to hear.
A perusal of the impugned judgment further reveals that the trial Court has merely reproduced the pleadings and evidence of the Petitioner without assigning independent reasons. The absence of reasoning is attributable to the lack of cross-examination and participation by the Respondent. Therefore, find that there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
For Judgment Click 👇