Dismissed

Shivanand Ganeshrao Nilawar v. Rukhminbai Digambar Labhshetwar and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jan 2013WP/10660/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the trial court's refusal to exhibit a handwriting expert report and call the original Will Deed. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the expert report could not be exhibited and secondary evidence was already permitted.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed with no costs awarded to the parties.

Shivanand Ganeshrao Nilawar Vs Rukhminbai… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 W.P. 10660....2012

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 10660 OF 2012,

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 10661 OF 2012

¶6

Shivanand Ganeshrao Nilawar V/s Sow.Rukhminbai Digambar Labhshetwar & Ors.

¶7

Office Notes,Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram,appearances, ................................ Court's orders or CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. directions and Registrar's orders DATE : 03/01/2013.

¶8

Mr. B.N.Gadegaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.A.Mukhedkar, Advocate for Resp. No. 3.

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

The petitioner is the original plaintiff. After the evidence of both the parties was concluded and the matter was kept for final arguments, at that stage the petitioner filed two (2) applications - (i) to exhibit the withdrawal pursis and the report of the hand writing expert and (ii) to call the original Will Deed from RCC No. 325 of 2005.

¶11

The application to the extent of exhibiting the withdrawal pursis was allowed and to the extent of exhibiting

¶12

2 W.P. 10660....2012

¶13

the report of the hand writing expert was rejected, so also the application to call the original Will Deed was also rejected. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petitions are filed.

¶14

Mr. Gadegaonkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report of the hand writing expert was sought to be exhibited only for the limited purpose i.e. for the purpose to show that the report of the hand writing expert is not conclusive as was admitted by the said witness.

¶15

The learned counsel further contends that there was no impediment for allowing the Will Deed to be called by the Court. The original Will Deed is filed in R.C.C. No. 325 of 2005. The original Will Deed would be relevant while adjudicating the Suit on merits as the whole Suit rests on the Will Deed. The Court has not considered this aspect in its correct perspective only because the Suit has proceeded further. That would not be the only ground to reject the application.

¶16

Mr. Mukhedkar, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 supports the order.

¶17

As far as W.P. No. 10660 of 2012 is concerned, the same is limited to the extent of non exhibiting the report of the hand

¶18

3 W.P. 10660....2012

¶19

writing expert. The hand writing expert has not been examined nor the other side has admitted the said report. Naturally, it could not have been exhibited in view of Order XIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure [ For short, ' C.P.C.' ]. The Court has already put article over the said document. As the expert has not been examined, his report naturally could not have been exhibited. The article is put on the document to recognize the said document.

¶20

As far as W.P. No. 10661 of 2012 is concerned, the same is limited to the extent of rejecting an application for calling the original Will Deed from R.C.C. No. 325 of 2005.

¶21

It would appear that the parties have already adduced the evidence. Even the witness has been examined. The Court has already allowed the parties to adduce secondary evidence on the said Will Deed and it is said that now the matter is posted for Judgment. Calling the original Will Deed at this stage would not be relevant as the parties are already permitted to adduce secondary evidence and the parties have adduced the secondary evidence.

¶22

Even otherwise, if the Court feels it necessary, the Court can exercise its powers under Order XIII Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for comparing the certified copy from the original.

¶23

4 W.P. 10660....2012

¶24

In light of the above, no case for interference is made out in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶25

The Writ Petition as such is dismissed. No costs.

¶26

[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶27

KNP/W.P. 10660....2012

Shivanand Ganeshrao Nilawar v. Rukhminbai Digambar Labhshetwar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivanand Ganeshrao Nilawar v. Rukhminbai Digambar Labhshetwar 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

Jijabai Subhash Garge and Ors. Vs M/S Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Appasaheb Sampat Bankar Vs Executive Engineer Irrigationcircle Ahmednagar

The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Div. Vs Sheshrao Yashwanta Mane and Anr.

Ramchandra Hari Patil Vs Rambhau Deoram Patil

Arjun Dashrath and 7ORS. Vs Smt.Zehrabi Mohd. Yusuf and Anr.

Shivaji Govind Japkar Vs Popat Mahadu Gunjal. and Anr.