Allowed

Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Dondaicha v. Vishwasrao Yashwantrao Patil and Others

Bombay HC16 Jul 2014WP/1569/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing an order of the Joint Civil Judge that rejected the petitioner's prayer to produce original documents. The court held that no prejudice was caused to the plaintiff as photocopies were already on record.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 12.2.2013 rejecting the application for production of documents is quashed; petitioner permitted to produce original documents.

Agricultural Produce Market Committee… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

W.P.No.1569/2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1569 OF 2013

¶5

Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Dondaicha, through its President Dilip Santosh Patil .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Vishasrao Yashwantrao Patil and ors.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr Pravin P. Chavan, Advocate for petitioner

¶10

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

¶11

DATE : 16th July 2014

¶12

PER COURT

¶13

By order dated February 12, 2013, Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shindkheda has rejected application Exh.132 in R.C.S.No.9/2004, moved by the present petitioner for production of documents during the trial of the said suit.

¶14

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while questioning the legality of the order dated 12^th February 2013 by which the permission to produce the original documents on record during the course of recording the evidence was rejected, submits that the present petitioner has every right to produce the documents at the

¶15

W.P.No.1569/2013

¶16

¶17

time of recording of evidence, as according to him, the photocopies of the said documents are already part of the record. He submits that the defendants have filed the documents by Exh.25/D on 3rd February 2004. He has submitted that the petitioner has every right to produce the original documents on record, as photocopies of which are already on record.

¶18

While countering the above submissions, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the trial of the suit has already begun. He urged that the photocopies of the documents are already produced at Exh.25/D, more particularly, during the course of recording of evidence. He submits that the evidence of the plaintiffs is already over and that of three of the witnesses of the defendants are already examined. As such, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶19

Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, the fact that the present petitioner – defendants have already produced photocopies of the original documents on 3^rd February 2004 vide Exh.25/D, is not in dispute. In that view of the matter, during the course of recording of evidence, it is the right of the defendants to produce the original documents, photocopies of which are already placed on record. No prejudice is demonstrated by the plaintiff if the documents in original, photocopy of which is on the record of trial Court, is permitted to be produced.

¶20

W.P.No.1569/2013

¶21

¶22

As such, the trial Court was in error while rejecting the prayer made by the present petitioner for production of documents. In that view of the matter, the order dated 12^th February 2013, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shindkheda below Exh.132 in R.C.S.No.9/2004, is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is permitted to produce the original documents on record, as is referred to in the said order. Writ Petition is allowed in above terms.

¶23

( N.W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶24

(vvr/1569.13wp)

Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Dondaicha v. Vishwasrao Yashwantrao Patil and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Dondaicha v. Vishwasrao Yashwantrao Patil and Others

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

Devid Jeevan Jadhav and Another Vs Jailaxmi Purandar Naik and Others

Kantabai Sudam Mhaske Vs Shankar Baburao Sawant and Others

Kisan Baburao Sawant and Another Vs Shankar Baburao Sawant and Others

Dattu Pandurang Mali Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Mohd. Ismail S/O Mohd. Osman Vs 1)DATTARAO S/O Sitaram Dombe and Others

Mohd. Ismail S/O Mohd. Osman Vs 1)DATTARAO S/O Sitaram Dombe and Others