Dismissed

Tukaram Jayaji Bhavar and Anr. v. Babu Jayaji Bhavar and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Jan 2011WP/573/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench held that no notice to produce original documents was required since the respondent denied the existence of the alleged partition. Permission granted to lead secondary evidence under Exhibit-20 was upheld, leading to rejection of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; trial court's order allowing secondary evidence upheld.

Tukaram Jayaji Bhavar and Anr. Vs Babu Jayaji… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.: 573 OF 2011

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶5

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.: 573 OF 2011

¶7

***

¶8

1. Heard Advocate Shri Kedar for

¶9

Petitioner/ defendant. Respondent/ plaintiff
wanted to lead secondary evidence in relation
to a memorandum of partition. He produced
photo copy of that along with his plaint and
thereafter sought permission vide Exhibit-20
mentioning that original thereof is with

¶10

defendant No.1 (present petitioner). The
defendant No.1/ petitioner vide his reply to
that application denied fact of any such
partition.

¶11

2.Contention before this Court is,

¶12

photostat copy cannot be permitted to be

¶13

proved by leading secondary evidence unless

¶14

it is compared with original and second

¶15

contention is that the procedure of issuing

¶16

notice to produce original ought to have been
complied with. It is apparent that

¶17

petitioner/ defendant No.1 is not accepting

¶18

¶19

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO.: 573 OF 2011

¶22

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶23

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶24

the fact of alleged oral partition, there is

¶25

no question of any notice being issued to him
only for the sake of formality. The trial
Court has correctly appreciated the position
and permission to lead secondary evidence has
been given. The defence that there never was
any such partition is still open and
petitionercanconductpropercross
examination to prove it. There is no
jurisdictional error or perversity. Petition
is rejected.

¶26

[B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.]

¶27

Dated:25/01/2011.
ans/573

Tukaram Jayaji Bhavar and Anr. v. Babu Jayaji Bhavar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tukaram Jayaji Bhavar and Anr. v. Babu Jayaji Bhavar 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

Sushila Shankar Khilari and Ors. Vs Sunita Nana Rohakale

Larsen and Tourbo Limited Vs Shrirang Laxman Lande

Yasin Ramjan (Pinjari)@ Munsuri. Vs Babasaheb Shankarrao Labade.

The Executive Engineer PWD Ahmednagar Vs Karbhari Narayan More

Narsana Dhondiba Kalme and Ors. Vs Chaya Vijaykumar Ugile and Ors.

Pradeep Gangaram Ghanekar Vs Pramila Madhukar Bhavsar