The High Court held that no case for interference in writ jurisdiction was made out as the trial court's evidence-based rejection of the application to exhibit a document was not liable to be set aside.
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.
wp-7958-15-(14)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7958 OF 2015
Piraji Rajaram Patil ..Petitioner Vs. Santosh Rangrao Gaikwad ..Respondent
Mr. Prasad Kulkarni i/b Mr. Anant Vadgaonkar for the Petitioner
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 27th OCTOBER, 2015
P.C.
1 The order dated 7-3-2015 passed by the Learned Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Palus, by which order, the application Exhibit 75 to exhibit the document produced with list Exhibit 43/3 came to be rejected. The said document is a document which was in the custody of the Bank in question and was produced through DW-2 who was the witness from the Bank.
2 The Trial Court has rejected the instant application Exhibit 75 on the ground that it is the case of the Defendant that he is acquainted with the signature of the Plaintiff and it is not his case that he has seen the Plaintiff executing the document. The Trial Court therefore held that the said document could not be executed in the absence of the same being proved in accordance with law. The Trial Court has further granted liberty to the Defendants to adopt appropriate course to get the document proved.
1 of 2
mmj
wp-7958-15-(14)
3 In my view, having regard to the aforesaid facts, no case for interference in the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
[R.M.SAVANT, J]
2 of 2
mmj
2 issues framed by the court
whether the impugned order rejecting the application to exhibit a document was susceptible to interference in writ jurisdiction
whether the trial court's finding on the defendant's acquaintance with the plaintiff's signature was a finding of fact immune from review
Piraji Rajaram Patil
Santosh Rangrao Gaikwad
R. M. Savant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
