Dismissed

Sawalaram Anand Mahar v. Mrs. Vaneeta Vijay Bhirmal and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Apr 2013WP/2366/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order rejecting an application to refer a document for handwriting expert evaluation. The bench held that the issuance of a certified copy interpreter's report was irrelevant to the issue of condoning delay for setting aside an ex parte decree.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Interference with the impugned order not permitted.

Sawalaram Anand Mahar Vs Mrs. Vaneeta Vijay Bhirmal… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp-2366.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2366 OF 2013

¶4

Sawalaram Anant Mahar : Petitioner. Versus Mrs. Vaneeta Vijay Birmal and ors. : Respondents.

¶5

Mr. Y J Master for the Petitioner. Mr. V B Rajure for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶6

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 12^th April 2013

¶7

P.C.

¶8

1 The order dated 17/1/2013 passed by the learned Civil Juge, Senior Division, Baramati rejecting the Application Exhibit 13 is taken exception to by way of the above Writ Petition.

¶9

2 The said Application Exhibit 13 was filed by the Petitioner for referring the matter as regards the signature on the application dated 29/3/2011 made for certified copy to the hand writing expert as it is the case of the Petitioner that the same has not been signed by the applicant i.e. V R Birmal who is the original Defendant No.11 i.e. the Respondent No.2 herein.

¶10

3 The instant application Exhibit 13 has been filed in Misc. Application No.38 of 2012 which has been filed by the Defendant Nos.11 and

1 of 2

lgc

wp-2366.13

12 for invoking Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside exparte decree. It is the case of the said Defendants that they were not aware of the proceedings and that the decree has been passed exparte against them. Since the said application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was belated by 13 days, the said Defendants have filed Misc. Civil Application No.38 of 2012 for condonation of delay. As indicated above, it is in the said application that the instant Application Exhibit 13 for referring the document in question being application for certified copy to the hand writing expert was made.

¶15

4 The Trial Court having regard to the fact that the issue is as to whether the delay is required to be condoned or not hinges upon whether the said Defendants had knowledge about the proceedings and the decree passed held that the matter was not required to be referred to the hand writing expert as the said aspect whether the said Birmal has signed the application or not has no relevance to the issue in hand.

¶16

5 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, in my view, no case for interference is made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶17

[R.M.SAVANT, J]

¶18

2 of 2

¶19

lgc

Sawalaram Anand Mahar v. Mrs. Vaneeta Vijay Bhirmal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sawalaram Anand Mahar v. Mrs. Vaneeta Vijay Bhirmal 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

Vishnu Shankar Jangam and Ors. Vs Maruti Shivram Jangam

Ratan Housing Development Limited through Ashok Omprakash Jain Vs Shri. Shivaji Sarjerao Pathare and Ors.

Sheth Devkaran Mulji Jain Sasta Bhadani Chawl Trust and Ors. Vs Mahendra Himmatlal Shah and Ors.

M/S. Anukul Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chinar Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Ors.

Mr. Jagganath Sambhu Mane Vs Mr. Dagadu Sopan Mane and Ors.

Shri. Vishal Arun Galande and Anr. Vs Smt. Ashabai Arun Galande and Ors.