Allowed

Mohammed Raza Abdul Shakoor and Ors. v. the Authorities of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Feb 2009WP/1154/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged an order refusing further adjournment to produce certified documents. The High Court held the impugned order unsustainable, as delay was caused by authorities. The order is set aside with liberty to issue summons to authorities.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order is set aside with liberty to issue summons to concerned authorities; plaintiffs must file affidavit if unable to produce copies within four weeks.

to the order passed by the Trial Court on 5th January 2009 refusing to grant further adjournment to the Petitioners/Plaintiffs to produce certified copies of the relevant documents. Indeed, in the order dated 17th November 2008, the Court has recorded the stand of the Plaintiffs that due to inadvertence, statement was made on the earlier occasion that they do not intend to lead further evidence but the Petitioners moved application on 17th November 2008 for permission to lead further evidence including by issuance of summons to Collector of Mumbai-III. The request of the Petitioners for permission to lead additional evidence is implicitly entertained by the Trial Court although the request for issuance of summons to Collector, Mumbai has been rejected. In that, the Trial Court by the same order permitted the Plaintiffs to obtain certified copies of the relevant documents and place the same on record. In deference to the said direction, the Plaintiffs applied to the said Authority for certified copies of the relevant documents which Application was submitted on 19th November 2008. However, as the Authorities did not issue certified copies inspite

of the said application, the Plaintiffs were required to seek adjournment before the Trial Court. On two occasions, the Trial Court acceded to that request but by the impugned order dated 5th January 2009, that request has been rejected. It is this order which is subject matter of the challenge in the present Writ Petition.

5. The question is: once the Trial Court has exercised discretion and permitted the Plaintiffs to produce further evidence, would it be appropriate to non-suit the Plaintiffs merely because the Plaintiffs are not in a position to produce certified copies of the relevant documents? The fact that the Plaintiffs have already applied for obtaining certified copies by way of application submitted to the concerned Authorities has not been doubted by the Trial Court. It is not the finding of the Trial Court that the certified copies were not made ready because of the inaction of the Plaintiffs as such. The Plaintiffs cannot be blamed for delay in issuance of certified copy.

have at the outset insisted for issuance of summons to the Collector, Mumbai but that request came to be rejected. Having rejected that request, the Trial Court was obliged to give sufficient time to the Plaintiffs to produce the certified copies of the relevant documents because the delay was not at the instance of the Plaintiffs, but attributable to the non-issuance of certified copies by the concerned Authorities.

7. If the Trial Court is of the opinion that the Authorities are not issuing certified copies because of which the trial is being delayed, may consider of issuing summons to the concerned Authority to speed up the trial. That option be exercised by the Trial Court if so advised. However, by no standards, the order which is impugned in this Petition closing the evidence of the Plaintiffs, for the aforesaid reason, can be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside with liberty to the Trial Court to issue summons to the concerned Authority if so advised. In the event, the Plaintiffs are not in a position to produce certified copies within four weeks from

today, may file such affidavit giving details as to the circumstances in which they are unable to obtain the certified copies of the relevant documents, in which case, the Trial Court may consider issuance of witness summons to the

Mohammed Raza Abdul Shakoor and Ors. v. the Authorities of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Raza Abdul Shakoor and Ors. v. the Authorities of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board and Anr.

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

Mohammed Yakub Munawar and Anr. Vs Kartikeshwar Balchand Choudhari and Ors.

Laxman Mahadeo Ayare and Anr. Vs Shubhangi Madhukar Ayare and Ors,.

Smt.Bertha Carvalho andANR Vs 1.SHRI Baldwin Joseph Francis D,Souza and Anr.

M/S. Shankarlal Gulumal and Anr. Vs M/S. Cafe Metro

Ramkuvarbai W/O. Raghunath Singh Pardeshi Vs Ganpatsa Shankarsa Bakale and Ors.

Surender Shantiswarup Sajdeh Vs Narendra Chawla and Ors.