Appeal by Smt. Anuja Anil Deshpande against dismissal of writ petition and rejection of review application regarding eviction. High Court upheld concurrent findings and dismissed appeal, noting lack of interference case.
No case made out for interference; Letters Patent Appeal dismissed.
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.
2310caz497.12
1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.497 OF 2012
IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL ST. NO. 2776 OF 2012
IN M.C.A. (REVIEW) NO.1061/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3950 OF 2007 (Smt. Anuja Anil Deshpande and others vs. Reform Club Ltd. and others)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri S.R. Deshpande, Advocate for appellants. Shri Abhay R. Sambre, Advocate for respondent no.1.
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND P.B. VARALE, JJ.
DATED : OCTOBER 23, 2012
By consent of learned Counsel for the parties, delay is condoned. The letters patent appeal is taken up for admission.
The appellants challenge the order dated 26/9/2007 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby writ petition filed by the appellants came to be dismissed and also the order dated 17/12/2011 whereby the review application came to be rejected.
Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for
2310caz497.12
2/4
appellants, submits that the suit itself was not tenable inasmuch as the respondent no.1/plaintiff had not produced the Resolution of the Company authorising the Secretary to file the suit. He further submits that the learned trial Judge has failed to give an opportunity to the appellants to prove their case. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, part of the land is already given by the Collector to the appellants and as such, the learned trial Court ought not to have decreed the suit. He submits that it is for the plaintiff to prove its case and merely on the basis of lacuna in the defendants' case, the decree could not have been passed.
Insofar as first ground is concerned, the learned trial Court as well as lower appellate Court have concurrently held that the original register wherein a Resolution was passed authorising Secretary of the plaintiff Company to institute and prosecute the suit was very much on record.
Insofar as second contention regarding defendants not being given opportunity is concerned, the roznama shows that the said contention is totally without substance. The Counsel for the defendants
2310caz497.12
3/4
was very much present on all the dates including the dates on which the matter was fixed for argument, arguments were heard and matter was fixed for judgment. If defendants desired to lead any evidence, they could have done so at that stage and if the learned trial Court had refused to admit evidence on behalf of the defendants, they could have taken recourse to such remedies as were available to them in law. The party cannot be permitted to say for the first time in the High Court that an opportunity to lead evidence was not granted to it.
Insofar as third point that the defendants had become owner of the land on account of lease granted by the Collector is concerned, in the absence of any evidence being led in that behalf before the trial Court, we cannot hear the said argument at this stage. Shri Sambre, learned Counsel for respondent no.1, submits that the appellants had also filed a writ petition bearing No. 608/2011 seeking a direction to the Collector to execute a Lease Deed, but the said petition was withdrawn by the appellants.
The learned trial Court has passed a
2310caz497.12
4/4
decree for eviction and the same is confirmed by the lower appellate Court though it has set aside the decree insofar as interest on rent is concerned. As such, the decree of eviction is based on concurrent findings, which have been upheld by the learned Single Judge in the writ jurisdiction.
For the aforesaid reasons, no case is made out for interference. The letters patent appeal is dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should disturb the lower courts' finding that the original register authorizing the suit was on record.
Whether the appellants were granted a sufficient opportunity to lead evidence before the trial and lower appellate courts.
Whether the decree for eviction is baseless despite the appellants' claim of ownership via Collector's lease.
Smt. Anuja Anil Deshpande and others
Reform Club Ltd. and others
B.R. Gavai
P.B. Varale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
