This is an appeal regarding the maintainability of an interlocutory order in a testamentary suit dispute involving forensic examination of a will. The court dismissed the appeal noting it was against an interlocutory order regarding document production.
Appeal dismissed. Appeal treated as interlocutory and not maintainable.
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.
(APPL 845 of 2015)
vat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL (L) No. 845 OF 2015 IN
TESTAMENTARY SUIT No. 12 OF 1999
Dilip Laxmichand Anand ...Appellant Vs.
Pradeep Kumar Anand and Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Prateik Parija I/b Probus Legal, for the Appellant. Ms. Zubin Behramkamdin I/b M. G. Gawde, for Respondent No.1. Mr. R. J. Mane, AGP for Respondent No. 2.
CORAM : V. M. KANADE & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
DATE : NOVEMBER 18, 2015 P.C. :
1/3
(APPL 845 of 2015)
2/3
original documents after issuance of proper summons. Reserving the right of the Appellant to file appropriate proceeding as per the direction given by the Learned Single Judge in his order dated 23rd June, 2015 and or take out other proceedings in accordance with law, Appeal is dismissed.
[REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.]
Vaishali Tikam
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal filed against an interlocutory order restricting the removal of original documents for forensic examination of a will is maintainable.
Whether the State of Maharashtra and State Bank of Patiala are necessary parties to this appeal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dilip Laxmichand Anand
Pradeep Kumar Anand
V. M. Kanade
Revati Mohite Dere
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
