Disposed

Ramesh Megji Jhaveri v. Genesis Management Consultancy Services Private Limited and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Apr 2010WP/1033/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the modification of a trial court order regarding the production of secondary evidence. The High Court directed the trial court to reconsider the application for other documents, confirmed the original order for three specific documents, and ordered the respondent to file a copy of an affidavit.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was modified; the respondent was directed to file an affidavit copy and produce specified documents within eight weeks for the trial court's reconsideration regarding other document

Ramesh Megji Jhaveri Vs Genesis Management… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2010)

wp-1033-10.sxw

SRJ

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1033 OF 2010

¶6

Mr.Ramesh M. Jhaveri

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

V/s.

¶9

M/s. Genesis Management Consultancy
Services Pvt. Ltd., & Others.. Respondents.

¶10

Mr. Niranjan Lapashiay with Mr. Dipen Furia i/b.
M/s.Niranjan & Co.,for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Bharat Joshi i/b. Ms. P.D.Gala, for Respondent Nos.3
and 4.

¶12

CORAM :A.S.OKA,J.

¶13

DATE :7th APRIL,2010

¶14

P.C.:-

¶15

1]Heard learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The Petitioner is the Plaintiff

¶16

and the Respondents are the Defendants. An application was
made by the Petitioner at Exhibit 32 seeking permission of

¶17

the Trial Court to lead the secondary evidence of certain

¶18

documents. The said application was contested by the 3rd

¶19

and 4th Respondents by filing a reply. By the impugned

¶20

order, the said application has been partly allowed. The
paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned order and the operative
part of the impugned order read thus:-

wp-1033-10.sxw

SRJ

8So far as, Nomination From as well as
Transfer Forms are concerned, I would like to
make it clear that original of both the said
documents must have been in the possession of
the Society of the suit premises. The Plaintiff
can examine the concerned official of Society
and can call said documents from the said
Society. In this way, he can prove the said
document. Therefore, I hold that in respect of
the said documents, there is no need to permit
the Plaintiff to lead the secondary evidence.

¶25

9In respect of other documents in the
�notice to produce document� are concerned, I
would like to make it clear that there is no
reference about the said document in the
affidavit of document at Exh 33. Therefore, I
hold that there is no need to allow the
Plaintiff to adduce any secondary evidence in
respect of the said documents. Hence, while
summing up my discussion here, I hold that this
application for production of secondary
evidence is liable to be partly allowed as
stated above. Accordingly, I answer point no.1
as partly affirmative and proceed to pass
following order.

¶26

ORDER

¶27

1. The notice is made partly absolute.

¶28

2.In respect of leave and licence Agreement,
sale deed and share certificate, the Plaintiff
is permitted to adduce secondary evidence
subject to the admissibility of the said
document as per law of evidence.

¶29

3.Parties to bear their own cost.�

wp-1033-10.sxw

SRJ

2]During the course of hearing, the 3rd Respondent

¶34

for himself and on behalf of the 4th Respondent has filed a
detailed affidavit dated 25th March, 2010 in this Court.
In the said affidavit, 3rd Respondent has dealt with the
issue regarding custody and relevancy of documents
referred to in the notice to produce document dated 12th
November, 2009 issued by the Petitioner.

¶35

3]By the impugned order, the Petitioner has been

¶36

permitted to adduce secondary evidence in respect of the
three documents which are at Sr. Nos,1,3 and 5 in the
notice to produce dated 12th November, 2009. The affidavit
of the 3rd Respondent discloses that there are certain

¶37

other documents which are in the custody of the said
Respondents. Instead of keeping the Petition pending, it
will be in the interests of justice, if the Trial Court is
directed to re-consider the prayer made in the application
at Exhibit 32 with reference to the other documents (the
documents other than at item nos.1, 2 and 5) in the notice
to produce documents dated 12th November, 2009. The
contesting Respondents have raised an objection to the
relevancy of the certain documents. Apart from considering

¶38

the case on merits as regards the prayer for grant of
permission to lead the secondary evidence, the Trial Court
will have to consider issue of relevancy of the said
documents in the light of the pleadings, and affidavit of
documents. This exercise is to be done by the Trial Court
after hearing both the parties on all aspects.

wp-1033-10.sxw

SRJ

4]

¶43

Hence, I pass following order:-

¶44

(i)The impugned order dated 12th
January, 2010 is modified. The clause 2
of the operative part is confirmed.
However, it is directed that the
application/notice at Exhibit 32 shall be
re-considered in relation to all the other
documents set out in the notice to produce
documents dated 12th November, 2009.

¶45

(ii)The 3rd Respondent shall place on
record of the Trial Court a true copy of
the affidavit dated 25th March, 2010 filed
this Court. The 3rd Respondent shall
produce the documents which have been
referred to in clauses (A) of paragraph 5
of the said Affidavit. A Copy of the
affidavit and the said documents shall be
produced by the 3rd Respondent before the
Trial Court within a period of eight weeks
from today.

¶46

(iii)Thereafter, the learned Trial
Court will proceed to consider the prayer
in application/notice at Exhibit 32 as
regards to other documents in the Notice to
produce dated 12th November, 2009.

¶47

(iv)As the Trial Court will have to
consider the issue of relevancy, it will be
open for the parties to file further
affidavits for the purpose of hearing of
the notice/application at Exhibit 32.

wp-1033-10.sxw

SRJ

(v)It is made clear that clause 2 of
impugned order stands confirmed.

¶52

(vi)All the contentions of the
parties on merits are kept open.

¶53

(vii)Petition is disposed of in the
above terms.

¶54

(A.S.OKA,J.)

Ramesh Megji Jhaveri v. Genesis Management Consultancy Services Private Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Megji Jhaveri v. Genesis Management Consultancy Services Private Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shalan Dhondiram Dengre Vs Arvind @ Baban Vitthal Lokande

Mohamed Harutt Chandsab Bogwan Vs Abubakar Ismail Khatik

Krishnaji Vishnu Prabhune (Decd.)by Lrs.- Kusum Krishanji Prabhune and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pralhad Siddhu Ghodake Vs Dattatraya Govind Aapake and Ors.

Dattatraya Ganpati Thorat Vs Ashwini Mahesh Thorat and Ors.

Natwarlal Vitthaldas Doshi Vs Laxmandas Vitthaldas Doshi and Ors.