Allowed

Shobha Uttamrao Bobde @ Shobha Marotrao Jadhav v. Kachrabai Marotrao Bobde and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Apr 2013WP/928/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the court quashed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application to call the original file of an earlier suit. The bench allowed the application, noting that rejecting it on technical grounds regarding an affidavit was inappropriate and the purpose of the inspection did not require leave under Order 32 CPC to be the prima facie issue.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting Exh.93 was quashed and allowed; the application is permitted.

Shobha Uttamrao Bobde @ Shobha Marotrao Jadhav Vs… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

UNREPORTED

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

¶4

BOMBAY

¶5

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.928 OF 2013.

¶7

Shobha D/o Uttamrao Bobde @
Shobha W/o Marotrao Jadhav,
Age 30 years, Occ.Household,
R/o Chondhi (BH), Tq.Vasmat,
Dist.Hingoli.

¶8

... Petitioner.

¶9

Versus

¶10

1. Kachrabai W/o Marotrao Bobde,
Age 79 years, Occ.Household,

¶11

2. Munjaji S/o Marotrao Bobde,
Age 64 years, Occ.Agri.,
Both R/o Kautha, Tq.Vasmat,
Dist.Hingoli.

¶12

3. Ujwala Marotrao Bobde,
Age 44 years, Occ.Household,
R/o Nishana, Tq.Aundha,
Dist.Hingoli.

¶13

... Respondents.

¶14

Mr.A.S.Deshpande, advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.A.P.Basarkar, advocate for the Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.

¶15

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶16

 Date : 25.04.2013.

¶17

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶19

1.Heard.

¶20

2.Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the parties,the petition is taken
up for final hearing.

¶21

3.The application filed by the present
petitioner (Exh.93) to call the original file of
RCS No.150/1991 is rejected.

¶22

4.Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for the
petitioner states that the said file is relevant
to ascertain as to whether leave was obtained as
required U/o 32 of the C.P.C. while prosecuting
the suit. The said application is rejected on
the count that affidavit is not filed. The same
is filed after evidence is recorded and certified
copy on record can be produced. According to the
learned counsel, the certified copy could not be
obtained as it is old proceedings. In the
interest of justice, the application ought to
have been allowed.

¶23

¶24

5.Mr.Basarkar, learned counsel for the

¶25

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the order and
submits that petitioner is protracting the
matter. The evidence on behalf of both the
parties is concluded. There is no impediment for
the petitioner to obtain the certified copy. The
learned counsel further submits that the issue
with regard to the status of the property is
already decided in the earlier suit. No purpose
would be served by calling the file of the
earlier suit.

¶26

6.With the assistance of the learned

¶27

counsel, I have gone through the order. The
earlier suit being filed is a matter of record.
The suit is of the year 1991. The petitioner has
contended that at the time of filing the suit
bearing RCS No. 150/91, she was minor and unaware
of filing of the earlier suit. It would be too
technical to reject the application on the ground

¶28

that the same is not supported by affidavit. The
present petition is on affidavit. The file is
sought to be called for limited purpose to
ascertain whether leave was obtained U/o 32 while

¶29

¶30

filing the said suit. Whether the leave was
necessary or not is a different aspect altogether
which the Court would decide.

¶31

7.In light of the above, the impugned
order is quashed and set aside and the
application Exh.93 is allowed.

¶32

8.Ruleaccordinglymadeabsolute.

¶33

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

 (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶35

asp/office/wp92813

Shobha Uttamrao Bobde @ Shobha Marotrao Jadhav v. Kachrabai Marotrao Bobde and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shobha Uttamrao Bobde @ Shobha Marotrao Jadhav v. Kachrabai Marotrao Bobde 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

Ashru Bajirao Aglawae Vs Javedkhan Kasamkhan and Another

Leelabai Savleram Wakchaure Vs Ashok Savleram Wakchaure and Others

Devram Babu Avhad and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vikram Shridharrao Deshmukh and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vishwambhar Narhari Somwanshi Vs Tukaram Sakharam Bansode Died Lrs Gayabai Tukaram Bansode and Ors.

Kirti Daalmill Ltd. Thr Authorised Officer Vs the Dy.Executive Engineer, M.S.E.D.Co.Ltd and Ors.