Remanded

Sou Meena Subhash Mahamuni @ Meena N Sutar Thr Her Att Holder Tulsabai N Sutar v. Indapur Municipal Council, Chief Officer and President

Bombay HC11 Oct 2007RPS/10/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition, the court held that an error apparent on the face of the record existed because the lower court overlooked the principal-agent relationship concerning an admission of possession. The recalled order was restored for hearing.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 11th December, 2006 is recalled; the Second Appeal No.998 of 2006 is restored to the file for hearing before the regular bench.

appellant is that while rejecting the Second Appeal by an order dated 11th December, 2006, though the point relating to the scope of Section 58 of the Evidence Act was considered, this Court overlooked the fact that the admission regarding possession of the premises with the appellant/applicant which was

claimed in the appeal was in relation to the testimony of the person who is agent for the respondents/original defendants and in that view of the matter, the statement by the agent being binding upon the Principal was totally overlooked while rejecting the contention based on the proposition of law as is incorporated under Section 58 of the Evidence Act.

"The contention regarding failure on the part of the lower Appellate Court to consider the provisions of Section 58 and in particular about alleged admission of the witnesses about possession of the premises with the appellant is totally devoid of substance. Section 58 does not apply to the testimonies of the witnesses, it applies to the admissions made by the parties to the proceedings. The witnesses are neither parties to the suit nor are the agents of the parties to the suit. Being so, the contention sought to be raised based on Section 58 of the Evidence Act is totally devoid of substance."

3. Undoubtedly, the contention of the appellant was rejected solely on the ground that the statement regarding possession of the premises with the applicant was by the witness. However, as rightly submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant, the fact that the witness was none else than the representative of the council and in that context whether the statement of the representative of the council is binding or not, and to that extent the said provision of the Evidence Act is attracted, was not at all considered though was sought to be canvassed by the applicant. This is an error apparent on the face of record which justifies recall of the order dated 11th December, 2006 and re-hearing of the Second Appeal No.998 of 2006 at the stage of admission. Hence, the order dated 11th December, 2006 is hereby recalled. The Second Appeal No.998 of 2006 is hereby restored to the file and directed to be placed on board for hearing before the regular bench. The Review Petition accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

Sou Meena Subhash Mahamuni @ Meena N Sutar Thr Her Att Holder Tulsabai N Sutar v. Indapur Municipal Council, Chief Officer and President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sou Meena Subhash Mahamuni @ Meena N Sutar Thr Her Att Holder Tulsabai N Sutar v. Indapur Municipal Council, Chief Officer and President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika Vs Mahapalika Arogya Seva Karmachari Sanghatana

Sarjerao Ramkrishna Sonavane (Decd.) by Lrs.- Shalini Wd/O. S. Sonawane and Ors. Vs Kashibai Changdeo Vhatkar (Decd.)by Lrs.- Sulochana Shivaji Pol and Ors.

Sarjerao Ramkrishna Sonavane (Decd.) by Lrs.- Shalini Wd/O. S. Sonawane and Ors. Vs Kashibai Changdeo Vhatkar (Decd.)by Lrs.- Sulochana Shivaji Pol and Ors.

Saipan Jagirdar Vs M/S.Highlands Corporation and Ors.

Pundalik Raghoba Shirgaonkar through Next Friend Surendra P. Shirgaonkar Vs the State of Goa through Police Inspector Margao

Ashok Pundalik Shirgaonkar through Next Friend Surendra Shirgaonkar Vs the State of Goa through Police Inspector Margao