Dismissed

Mr. Prasad Acharya v. Mrs. Rachana Prasad Acharya and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Mar 2013WP/2378/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil matter involving bank documents, the Court held that parties are bound to produce documents when called upon instead of seeking witness summons. The writ petition was dismissed, directing the trial Judge to consider submitted bank statements and FDR entries without summoning bank officials.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; trial Judge directed to consider case on merits of bank accounts and FDRs based on statements given by husband and reply by wife without summoning bank officials.

Mr. Prasad Acharya Vs Mrs. Rachana Prasad… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

(1) (7) WP 2378/13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Amk

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2378 OF 2013

¶5

Mr. Prasad Acharya Vs.

¶6

Mrs. Rachana Prasad Acharya & Anr.

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. P. J. Thorat for the Petitioner. Smt. Sharmila Thorat for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATE : 15th MARCH, 2013.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

There is almost not dispute between the parties. Both the parties are entitled to give notice to produce the documents which they seek to rely upon and which are in the possession of the either party. Such noticee is bound and liable to produce all the documents which are in the possession of such party.

¶13

No such notice to produce the documents of the wife has been given by the husband. Instead the husband has taken out application to issue witness summons upon certain bank officers. The summons were issued. The bank officers attended. They produced documents. Yet another application was taken out. That application is pending. Whilst that was pending the husband made an application for issue of proclamation. That is not justified. The learned Judge has rightly rejected that application.

¶14

In fact even the application for issue of summons made for the second time is not justified.

¶15

Parties must first call upon one another to produce the

¶16

(2) (7) WP 2378/13

¶17

documents. If a party fails and neglects to produce the documents, the party calling upon can certainly have it produced through a third party. He can also call upon the Court to consider the conduct of the party refusing to produce the documents which are in the possession of that party. In this case certain bank statements and FDRs are required to be considered. The bank statements have been produced. Statement of the FDRs of the wife is given. The wife has accepted that statement except of 3 entries out of 39 entries. The learned Judge would be able to and will surely consider the wife's income from the list of FDRs.

¶18

Certain FDRs are stated to have matured. The rate of interest as well as the dates of the FDRs are given. Hence the FDR amounts must be calculated by the parties to the petition.

¶19

There is absolutely no requirement to summon the bank official for the documents of the bank of either party. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed with the directions that the learned Judge would surely consider the case on merits of both the parties with regard to the bank accounts as well as FDRs in the statement given by the husband and reply by the wife.

¶20

The husband shall rely upon the FDRs statement and the wife shall explain each entry.

¶21

(ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Mr. Prasad Acharya v. Mrs. Rachana Prasad Acharya and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Prasad Acharya v. Mrs. Rachana Prasad Acharya 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

Anil Shankarrao Bhuse Vs Madhuri Anil Bhuse and Ors.

Mr. Nataranjan Sundaresan Vs Mrs. Shadi Natrajan

Dinesh T. Parikh Vs Nirmala K. Parekh and 2 Ors.

Smt. Durga Devi H. Soni Vs Hitesh Bansilal Soni @ Ashok Soni

Vinod Rajkrishan Kaushik and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shekar Ashok Kamble and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.