Dismissed

Sadanand Pandharinath Gandhare (Since Deceasedthrough Heirs 1. Smt. Savita S. Gandhare and Ors.) v. Shankarilal Mohanlal Shah (Since Deceased Thourhg Heirs 1.PUSHPABEN S. Shah and Ors.)

Bombay HC19 Sept 2013WP/7167/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of an order dismissing an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. Court held no error as petitioners applied two days before evidence closure without explanation for not seeking info earlier.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no additional evidence to be admitted.

Sadanand Pandharinath Gandhare (Since… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

: 1 :

15.wp.7167.12

ingale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 7167 OF 2012

¶6

Sadanand Pandarinath Gandhre

¶7

(Since deceased through Heirs)

¶8

Smt.Savita Sadanand Gandhre and others

¶9

.. Petitioners

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Shankarlal Mohanlal Shah (Since deceased through Heirs) 1. Pushpaben Shankarlal Shah and others

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

Mr. Pratap Patil i/b Mr.Manoj Kadam, for Petitioners.

¶14

CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J . DATE : 19^th September, 2013

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

. Heard Mr.Pratap Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners

¶17

at length.

¶18

By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the original plaintiffs have challenged the judgment and order dated 04/01/2012 passed by the learned District Judge3, Raigad, Alibag below Exhibit 20 in Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2009. By that order, the learned District Judge dismissed the application moved by the petitioners for production of the additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.').

¶19

In support of this petition, Mr.Patil submitted that the

¶20

15.wp.7167.12

¶21

: 2 :

¶22

evidence of the petitioners was closed on 03/01/2009 and the arguments were heard by the learned trial Court on 17/02/2009 and the matter was reserved for judgment. On the same day, the petitioners received the information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'Act') from M.S.E.B. He submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioners could not produce the information supplied by the M.S.E.B. He therefore, submitted that the petitioners have made out a case under Order 41 Rule 27 (aa) of C.P.C. The learned District Judge ought to have allowed the said application.

¶23

I have considered the submissions advanced by Mr.Patil. It is not in dispute that the petitioners instituted the suit for eviction on the ground of nonuser of the suit premises. The suit was instituted on 07/03/1998. The evidence of the plaintiffs was closed on 03/01/2009. Just before the closure of the evidence, the plaintiffs made application on 01/01/2009 under the Act to the M.S.E.B seeking information about the consumption of the electricity for the period November 1995 to February 1998. In paragraph 10, the Appellate Court after noting the relevant dates held that the petitioners herein failed to establish that case falls within the parameters of the Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. I do not find that the learned District Judge has committed any error in rejecting the application. The plaintiffs made application on 01/01/2009 that is to say just two days before the closure of the evidence on 03/01/2009. No explanation was given by the plaintiffs

¶24

: 3 : 15.wp.7167.12

¶25

for not seeking information under the Act from M.S.E.B. from 1998 onwards. In view thereof, no case is made out for invocation of powers under section 227 of the Constitution of India. In any case, the impugned order is purely interlocutory.

¶26

It is made clear that where a decree is challenged by the petitioners, any error, defect or irregularity in the impugned order, affecting the decision of the case, may be set forth as a ground of objection in the said proceedings as per section 105(1) of C.P.C.

¶27

Subject to above, the petition fails and the same is

¶28

dismissed.

Sadanand Pandharinath Gandhare (Since Deceasedthrough Heirs 1. Smt. Savita S. Gandhare and Ors.) v. Shankarilal Mohanlal Shah (Since Deceased Thourhg Heirs 1.PUSHPABEN S. Shah and Ors.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadanand Pandharinath Gandhare (Since Deceasedthrough Heirs 1. Smt. Savita S. Gandhare and Ors.) v. Shankarilal Mohanlal Shah (Since Deceased Thourhg Heirs 1.PUSHPABEN S. Shah 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

Shri Prakash Balu Surve and Anr. Vs Mr. Gautam Vitthal Pawar

Shyambabu Gupta Vs M/S. Ronuk Industries Limited and Ors.

Manohar Harishchandra Mane Vs Raghunath B. Patil

Ms. Rukhsana Fahim Khan and Anr. Vs M/S. Elite Construction

M/S. Ramee Construction Private Limited Vs International Institute of Planning and Management Private Limited

Smt.Harabi Abdul Mateen Azmat W/O Abdul Mateen Azmat (Since Deceased) and Ors. Vs Ramsevak Brahmadeo Yadav Heir and R. of Shri Brahmadeo Manbodh Yadav (Since Deceased)