In a writ petition filed by G.M. W.C.L. challenging a reference court order allowing secondary evidence of a possession receipt, the Nagpur Bench dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court's decision as just and proper.
Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP869-13
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 869/2013
(G.M. W.C.L. & ANOTHER VERSUS DHUMANSINGH TIKARAM KACHHAWAHA & ANOTHER)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
Court's or Judge's orders
Shri M.P. Badar, counsel for the petitioners.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 13, 2013.
By this petition, the petitioners impugn an order passed by the reference Court on 22.11.2012 allowing an application filed by the respondent no.1 for permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of the Deed of Surrenderpossession receipt.
The respondent no.1 had filed a reference for seeking enhanced compensation. The respondent no.1 claimed that he had lost his possession in the year 1987. The respondent no.1 claimed that a Possession Receipt-Surrender Deed was executed in the year 1987 and the respondent no.1 was in possession of the photostat copy of the said document. Though the respondent no.1 had issued a notice to the petitioners to produce the original document on record, the petitioners had failed to produce the same. Since the petitioners had failed to produce the original in spite of notice, the respondent no.1 sought permission to lead secondary evidence in respect of the document i.e. possession receipt. The trial Court, by the impugned order dated 22.11.2012, granted permission to the respondent no.1 to tender secondary evidence.
On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the trial
WP869-13
2
Court was justified in allowing the respondent no.1 to lead secondary evidence in respect of the possession receipt. The respondent no.1 had laid a foundation for tendering secondary evidence in respect of the document as the respondent no.1 was in possession of the photostat copy of the possession receipt and in spite of issuance of notice to the petitioners to produce the original, the petitioners had declined to produce the same. The order of the trial Court is just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
APTE
G.M. W.C.L. & Another
Dhumansingh Tikaram Kachhawaha & Another
Vasanti A. Naik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
