Writ petition against order rejecting application to object to admissibility of unregistered document. Court allowed petitioners to raise objection during cross-examination and quashed impugned order regarding registration.
Petitioners allowed to raise objection during cross-examination; impugned order quashed regarding registration objection.
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.
T
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1882 OF 2009
Somibai Ganpat Thakur andors
.. Petitioners
Vs
Maruti Balya Thakur
.. Respondent
Ms.Gauri Godse, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Redekar, for the Respondent.
CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 14/09/2009
PC:
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2
two-fold. Firstly, it was insufficiently stamped, and secondly, it was unregistered. Insofar as insufficient stamp is concerned, that defect has already been cured. Insofar as the second ground of objection is concerned, both the learned counsel for the parties have relied upon the Judgment of the Full Bench in Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia Vs. Subodh Mody, 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 886 and the Judgment in M/ Conwood Agencies Pvt Ltd Vs. Namdeo Pandurang Panchal and Anr , 2005 (1) ALL MR 335 in support of their contentions. After having gone through the order, impugned in the present writ petition, and the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice. The learned counsel for the parties have also agreed for the following order.
It is open to the petitioners to raise an objection as to admissibility of the document dated 3.1.1989 for want of registration during the cross-examination of the plaintiff, as held by the Full Bench in paragraph 76 of the Judgment in Hemendra Rasklal Ghia Vs. Subodh Mody (supra). The trial Court shall deal with the objection in the light of the observations made by the Full Bench so also in the light of the Judgment in M/s Conwood Agencies Pvt Ltd (supra). With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. It is needless to state that in view of this order, the impugned order, insofar as the objection of the
3
petitioners as to admissibility of the document for want of its
registration, renders ineffective.
(D. B. Bhosale, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners can raise objection to admissibility of unregistered document during cross-examination.
Whether impugned order rejecting application under Order 13 Rule 3 CPC stands quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia Vs. Subodh ModyExplained¶13
Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia Vs. Subodh Mody, 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 886 · Who else cites this
M/s Conwood Agencies Pvt Ltd Vs. Namdeo Pandurang PanchalExplained¶13
M/ Conwood Agencies Pvt Ltd Vs. Namdeo Pandurang Panchal and Anr, 2005 (1) ALL MR 335
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Somibai Ganpat Thakur
Maruti Balya Thakur
D.B. Bhosale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
