Allowed

Namdeo Sadu Dige and Anr. v. Kakasaheb Sadu Dige and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2012WP/3797/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an oral order in a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application to call for the record of a suit. The Court held that certified copies are insufficient for verifying signatures when the existence of the suit record is denied by the respondents. The application for the record was allowed. Subject-matter: Writ petition and civil procedure.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside; application for call for record allowed; trial Court directed to call file of R.C.S. No. 333/2003.

Namdeo Sadu Dige and Anr. Vs Kakasaheb Sadu… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

WP 3797/2012

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3797/2012

¶5

NAMDEO S/O SADU DIGE AND ANOTHER VS. KAKASAHEB S/O SADU DIGE AND ANOTHER

¶6

Shri Dhananjay P. Deshpande, Advcate for petitioners. Shri A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶7

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATED : 22^nd August, 2012

¶8

ORAL ORDER :

¶9

Heard.

¶10

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

¶11

The present petitioners have filed an application requesting to call for record of R.C.S. No. 333/2003 vide Exh. 57 and also filed an application seeking witness summons to Advocate Mr. D.B. Done vide Exh. 58. The Court allowed application at Exh. 58 and issued witness summons to advocate Mr. Done but rejected the application Exh. 57 for calling the file and record of R. C. S. No. 333/2003 on the ground that the petitioner can obtain certified

¶12

copies. The said order is assailed in the present writ petition.

¶13

WP 3797/2012

¶14

¶15

Shri A.S. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondents supports the order and submits that there is no impediment for petitioner to obtain certified copies. The Court has rightly passed the order.

¶16

Necessity for petitioner to file application was that the respondents were denying the very filing of the earlier suit i.e. R.C.S. No. 333/2003. Witness summons to the earlier advocate of the respondent in R.C.S. No. 333/2003 has been allowed. Signature on the plaint, vakalatnama and application can not be confronted on the basis of certified copies. For that purpose original record is required. In view of the above impugned order is quashed and set aside and the application Exh. 57 is allowed.

¶17

The trial Court shall call for the file and record of R. C. S. No. 333/2003 as prayed in the application Exh. 57. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.

¶18

Interim relief granted earlier to continue till then.

¶19

( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶20

ts k/

Namdeo Sadu Dige and Anr. v. Kakasaheb Sadu Dige and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namdeo Sadu Dige and Anr. v. Kakasaheb Sadu Dige 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

Mohan Annasaheb Deshmukh Vs Parvatihbai Vittalrao Ingale and Ors.

Gajanan Bahuudhyashiya Shikshan Sanstha Latur Thr President and Anr. Vs Satyabhamabai Govind Mirkale and Anr.

Mohan Eknath Upasani Vs Shri Saibaba Sansthan Vishwasta Vyavastha, Shirdi

Managing Director Ashok Sahakari Ksakhar Karkhana Ashoknagar Dist a.Nagar Vs Mandabai Popat Changhate and Anr.

Bharat Petroleun Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Vs Samta Nagri Sah. Patsanstha Maryadit, Kopargaon and Ors.

Ashok Limbraj Shinde Thr Gpa Nilawati Ashok Shinde Vs Vishnu Murlidhar Shinde