Allowed

Shri. Keru Laxman Jadhav and Anr. v. Shri. Nilesh Jaswant Rao and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2014WP/8064/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court civil appellate jurisdiction quashed orders of the trial Court for exhibiting documents and directing cross-examination without a prior hearing. The petition was allowed; the orders were set aside, and a direction was issued for a new hearing on document admissibility.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 20th and 22nd April 2013 were set aside, and the trial Court was directed to grant a hearing to both sides for admissibility of documents.

Shri. Keru Laxman Jadhav and Anr. Vs Shri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1/3 * WP-6945-2012 Thurs,3July,2014

¶2

Rane

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTON

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 8064 OF 2013

¶6

Shri. Keru Laxman Jadhav & anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Shri. Nilesh Jaswant Rao & Ors. …..Respondents

¶7

¶8

Ms. Smita Gaidhani, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr. H.E. Palwe, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 4.

¶10

CORAM :- SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.

¶11

3^rd July, 2014.

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

1). Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing immediately. Heard learned Counsel.

¶14

2). The petitioners are the original plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 220 of 2011 pending in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Nashik. The respondents are the original defendants. The petitioners direct this petition, against the order dated 20^th April, 2013 passed below Exhibit-1

¶15

and the order dated 22^nd April, 2013 passed on the application at Exhibit-54. Both the orders, relate to marking of documents produced by respondents no.1 to 4 in evidence. The respondents had at the time

¶16

Rane

¶17

2/3 * WP-6945-2012 Thurs,3July,2014

¶18

of commencement of the trial, filed a list of documents that they proposed to produce in evidence. One of the documents contained therein was the zerox copy of letter of consent dated 26^th April, 2010 of the son of petitioner no.1. Admittedly, while the evidence in the suit was being recorded, the trial Court had not marked the documents as exhibit after considering their admissibility. After hearing the final arguments in the suit, when the same was posted for judgment, the trial Court by its order dated 20^th April, 2013 without giving any hearing to the parties, exhibited several documents mentioned in the order. Since the order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing, the petitioners filed the application at Exhibit-54 requesting for setting aside the order and for grant of opportunity of hearing. The trial Court, not only rejected the application, but gave a direction that respondents no.1 to 4 shall secure presence of D.W.2 for cross-examination by the petitioners on the documents exhibited.

¶19

3). The procedure followed by the trial Court, is clearly not in accordance with law. In the first place, the trial Court, ought to have considered the admissibility of the documents and exhibited the same, as and when, the documents were tendered in evidence. Secondly, if for some reason, this exercise was not done at the proper time and the trial Court was considering the documents for admitting them in evidence at any subsequent time, it ought to have given an opportunity to the parties

¶20

Rane

¶21

3/3 * WP-6945-2012 Thurs,3July,2014

¶22

of hearing, so that the petitioners could have placed their arguments as regards admissibility of the documents. The first mistake committed by the trial court has been aggravated by rejecting the application at Exhibit-54 filed by the petitioners. The trial Court, not only, did not grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, but without there being any application from any of the parties, gave directions for crossexamination of a witness after the evidence in the matter was closed. The impugned order therefore, cannot be sustained.

¶23

4). The petition is allowed. The order dated 22^nd April, 2013 passed on the application at Exhibit-54 is set aside. The application at Exhibit 54 is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 20^th April, 2013 passed below Exhibit-1 stands set aside. The trial Court shall give hearing to both sides for admissibility of the documents produced by respondents no.1 to 4, a list whereof is at page no.56 to the petition and decide the admissibility on the basis of the evidence that has been brought on record.

¶24

(SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)

Shri. Keru Laxman Jadhav and Anr. v. Shri. Nilesh Jaswant Rao and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Keru Laxman Jadhav and Anr. v. Shri. Nilesh Jaswant Rao and Ors.

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

Purshotam Narayanrao Ghate Vs Smt. Muktambi Sukrusab Nadaf and Ors.

Raghunath Namdev Dusane Vs Smt. Uttambai Trimbak Shelar and Ors.

M/S. Tvs Finance and Services Ltd. and Ors. Vs M. v. Subramaniyam and Ors.

Mr. Rushi M. Gandhy Vs Shri. Pradeep Moreshwar Gupte

Ramesh B.Ahuja and Anr. Vs Hari Dattatraya Shitole and Ors.

Mrs. Pravina Vikrant Ghotge Vs Mr. Vinayak Ramchandra Dindorikar and Ors.