Single judge order granting inspection of specific documents to plaintiffs in administration and partition suit directed against multiple private and public authority respondents.
Order granting inspection of enumerated documents to plaintiffs; public authorities directed to produce entire files within two weeks.
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.
19-CHS591-13.DOC
Agk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 591 OF 2013
IN
SUIT NO. 1366 OF 2011
Sarojkumar N. Agarwal & 4 Ors.…Plaintiffs
Versus
Sajjan N. Agarwal & 12 Ors.…Defendants
Mr. Nitin Thakkar, Senior Advocate , with Mr. Kamal Khata, Mrs. Nityoah Mehta, Mr. Ashish Anand, i/b M/s. Nityoah Suneel & Associates, for the Plaintiffs.Ms. Priyanka Kothari , with Ms. Neha Bhatt, i/b M/s. Bilawala & Co., for Defendants Nos. 12 and 13.Ms. Swati Sawant, for Defendants Nos. 1, 3, 4, & 5.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 16th February 2015
PC:-
1.This is the Plaintiffs’ Chamber Summons seeking inspection
of documents listed at Exhibit “E” to the affidavit in support.
2.The 1st Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant are
all brothers. According to the Plaintiffs, the 2nd Defendant has
disposed of certain immovable properties on the basis of an
1 of 4
19-CHS591-13.DOC
unprobated will or pursuant to an alleged family arrangement or a
series of arrangements or a combination of all of this. The Plaintiffs
claim to have right in this immovable property in this
administration suit combined with a cause of action in partition and
which is based on intestacy of the deceased.
3.Exhibit “E” to the affidavit in support contains several
different lists, each directed to a different set of Defendants. List
“1” is a list of documents of which inspection is required from
Defendants Nos. 2, 6, 7 and 8. List “2” (page 108) seeks inspection
of the enumerated documents from Defendants Nos. 9 to 11B. List
“3” sets out documents of which inspection is required from
Defendants Nos. 12 to 16. List “4” sets out the documents of which
inspection is required from Defendant No. 17. The final List “5”
sets out the documents of which inspection is required from
Defendants Nos. 18 and 19.
4.It is true that some of the items in these lists are stated in
generalities. For example, an item that appears repeatedly is one
that says “any other documents” or “all correspondence”. These
are not matters of which inspection can be properly sought. Indeed,
in fairness, Mr. Thakkar, learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff
does not even press for any relief in respect of such items. The
other items are, however, specific and relevant.
5.The Defendants listed above, i.e., Defendants Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8,
9 to 11B, and 12 to 16 are directed to give the Plaintiffs’ inspection
of the various specific documents enumerated in the lists for each
of the sets of the Defendants. Should any of these Defendants
2 of 4
19-CHS591-13.DOC
decline to give inspection of any particular document, they will say
so specifically and will assign a reason for not giving inspection. It
will be open to the Defendants to contend at any stage of the suit
that these documents of which inspection is sought are not relevant
nor necessary and that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to inspection of
this. Equally, it will be open to the Plaintiffs to contend that the
failure to give inspection invites an adverse inference against the
Defendants concerned.
6.Defendants Nos. 17, 18 and 19 are public authorities. There is
no question of any of them declining to grant inspection of any
items. Each of them is directed to give inspection within two weeks
from the date of receipt of an authenticated copy of this order of all
the documents in their power and possession relating to the subject
matter of the suit and enumerated in Exhibit “E” to the affidavit in
support, including all generally worded items as well. It is clarified
that Defendants Nos. 17, 18 and 19 must give the Plaintiffs’
inspection of their entire files pertaining to these properties. The
latitude that is available to the other Defendants is not available to
these public authorities.
7.Inspection by other Defendants, i.e., the private parties must
be completed on or before 9th March 2015.
8.All Notices of Motions to be listed for direction on 11th
March 2015.
9.The Chamber Summons is disposed of in these terms with
no order as to costs.
3 of 4
19-CHS591-13.DOC
10. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
4 of 4
Sarojkumar N. Agarwal & 4 Ors.
Sajjan N. Agarwal & 12 Ors.
G. S. PATEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court