Allowed

Devrao Eknath Kamble and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Dec 2013WP/11465/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order rejecting an application for witness summons in a regular civil suit involving production of public documents held by a City Survey Office, directing the trial court to issue summons in accordance with legal procedure.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 28.9.2010 quashed and set aside; application Exh.114/D allowed; trial court directed to issue summons.

Devrao Eknath Kamble and Ors. Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

W.P. No. 11465/2010

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.11465 OF 2010

¶5

Devrao s/o Eknath Kamble and ors.

¶6

..PETITIONERS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Mah. & ors.

¶9

..RESPONDENTS

¶10

Ms A.R. Mate, Advocate holding for Mr A.H. Kasliwal for petitioners; Mr K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3; Mr S.D. Tare, Advocate holding for Mr S.S. Choudhari for respondent no. 4/A

¶11

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. DATE : 19th December, 2013

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length.

¶14

Issue for consideration of this Court is that an application made below Exh.114/D, in Regular Civil Suit No.532 of 2007 before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Latur by the plaintiffs, seeking production of certain documents and summons to a witness has been rejected.

¶15

With the assistance of the learned Advocates for the parties, I have gone through the petition paper-book and the impugned order. The plaintiffs desire certain documents pertaining to the cancellation of mutation entry no.303 and mutation entry no.2290, with reference to the

¶16

W.P. No. 11465/2010

¶17

suit property to be produced before the Court. They are in custody of the City Survey Office/Superintendent, namely, Mr Sudam Dadarao Jadhav.

¶18

The application Exh.114/D was primarily for enabling the said person to appear before the Court as a witness and bring the concerned documents before the Court.

¶19

The impugned order, which is at page 25 of the petition paper-book, reads thus :-

¶20

"The witness summons is called in respect of public document which has presumptive value. Witness cannot be called to prove the same. Hence rejected ."

¶21

There is hardly any justification to the said order. There are no reasons adduced by the learned Court for rejecting the said application. The application is rejected merely on the ground that public documents have presumptive value which is quite correct. However, it is clearly seen that the learned Court has totally over-looked the contentions put-forth by the petitioners in paragraph no.2 of the said application Exh.114/D.

¶22

Learned Advocate for respondent no.4-A strenuously justifies the said order and prays that the petition be dismissed.

¶23

(3) W.P. No. 11465/2010

¶24

The petitioners, who are the original plaintiffs desire to avail of all opportunities in order to prove their claim. Production of the said documents, which are in the custody of a Government official and summons to the said official for deposing in the Court, on the basis of the said documents can be construed to be an effort by the petitioners to prove their claim.

¶25

I, therefore, do not find any justification in the impugned order.

¶26

As such, the impugned order dated 28th September, 2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Latur, below Exh.114/D, in Regular Civil Suit No.532 of 2007, is quashed and set aside. Said application Exh.114/D, dated 28th September, 2010 stands allowed. Trial Court is directed to issue necessary summons in accordance with the procedure laid down by law.

¶27

Petition is, therefore, allowed with no order as to costs.

¶28

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE), JUDGE

¶29

amj/wp11465.10

Devrao Eknath Kamble and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devrao Eknath Kamble and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Bharati Jayasing Pansare Vs the President Bahujan Samaj Prabodhan Shikshan Sanstha Kotul and Ors.

Shivaji Vitthal Deshmukh Vs the President Bahujan Samaj Prabodhan Shikshan Sanstha Kotul and Ors.

Bachhiram Baburao Jadhav Vs the President Bahujan Samaj Prabodhan Shikshan Sanstha Kotul and Ors.

Ghanashyam Digambar Lamboli Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shankar Kachru Meshram Vs Malti Madan Meshram and Anr.

Dr Hedgewar Seva Samiti Conducted Agr Science Centre Kolada Dist Nandurbar Thr Secretay and Ors. Vs Purushottam Ramdas Joshi and Anr.