Held a writ petition challenging an interim order discharging notice for document production dishonestly delayed and lacking merit. The High Court dismissed the petition upholding the trial judge's decision.
no order as to costs
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO.2209 OF 2006
Bhairam S. Singh .. ..Petitioner
Versus
Shivshankar Gokula Singh & Ors. .. ..Respondents
Mr.A.S.Dubey for petitioner
Mr.R.B.Singh for respondents
CORAM : P.V.KAKADE, J.
DATE : 12TH APRIL, 2006
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
Perused the record.
2. The defendant-petitioner has preferred this
petition against the interim order passed by the trial
court discharging the notice for production of documents
at the stage when the matter was kept for judgment.
: 2 :
3. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner
wanted to bring on record documents pertaining to the
Notification issued by the State Government in the year
1989. The suit was filed in the year 1981 and earlier
application for adjournment of the matter for production
of the said document was withdrawn by the petitioner on
12.12.2005. Thereafter the evidence proceeded and was
closed. The arguments were heard and matter was placed
for judgment at which time the application was moved for
permission to produce the documents on record. The
learned trial judge after hearing both the sides rejected
the application and hence the present petition.
4. Without further elaboration it must be noted that
when the petitioner was aware of the Notification in the
year 1989 in pending suit of 1981 it is not explained
anywhere as to why the documents were not procured and
produced prior to commencement of hearing of the suit or
till December, 2005 when the matter was placed for
judgment on 6.2.2006. Perusal of the order passed by the
trial court appears to be just, legal and proper and
therefore it would brook no interference, as the
reasoning adopted and finding recorded by the trial court
: 3 :
is legal and proper. In the result the petition stands
dismissed with no order as to costs.
Bhairam S. Singh
Shivshankar Gokula Singh
P.V.KAKADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court