Dismissed

Sai Service Agency Bombay Limited v. Bapu Sonu Gaikwad (Since Decd) through Lrs.

Bombay HC11 Mar 2016WP/2859/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner challenging a lower court's rejection to lead secondary evidence abandoned the petition. The High Court disposed of the writ petition as it was not pressed. The trial court was directed to issue witness summons for original documents.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as not pressed. Trial court directed to issue witness summons for original documents.

Sai Service Agency Bombay Limited Vs Bapu Sonu… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 / 3 WP/2859/2016

¶2

Tapadia RR/B.914

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2859 OF 2016

¶4

Sai Service Agency Bombay Limited

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

¶7

Bapu Sonu Gaikwad, since deceased, through LRs

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr.G.S.Godbole, Senior Advocate, with Ms Neha Prashant and Monisha Bhangale i/b b ALMT Legal, for Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Madhav Jamdar, Advocate for Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : R.G.KETKAR,J. DATE : 11/03/2016

¶12

PC :

¶13

Heard Mr.Girish Godbole, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Madhav Jamdar, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶14

By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and order dated 10.2.2016 passed by the learned 12 Jt. Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Pune below Exhibit 178 in Regular Civil Suit No. 668 of 2010. By that order, the learned trial Judge rejected the application made by the petitioner for leading secondary evidence in respect of sale deeds dated 1.11.1973, 6.9.1973, 20.10.1973, 1.11.1973 and Correction Deed dated 20.7.1982 executed by Bapu Sonu Gaikwad and Shankarrao Cornell. Mr. Jamdar submitted that Mr Dhanyakumar Doshi had acquired development rights from persons whose details are set out in application Exh.80 at clauses

¶15

2 / 3 WP/2859/2016

¶16

2 to 8. The said Doshi is also Constituted Attorney of these persons and, therefore, original documents must be in his custody. He further submitted that without prejudice to the above contention, the respondents have no objection if witness summons are issued to the persons who, according to the defendant, are in custody and possession of original documents.

¶17

The petitioner has filed application Exhibit-80 on 12.8.,2011 giving details of the documents produced by the defendant original of which are required to be produced before the trial Court.

¶18

Mr. Godbole has tendered a list of persons who possibly could have original documents as sought by the defendant. Same is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. In view thereof, the trial Court shall issue witness summons to persons mentioned in the list marked as “X” for production of original documents. Apart from that, for the limited purpose the trial Court will issue witness summons to officer attached to SubRegistrar's office for producing original register of the relevant period showing signatures of parties who executed the documents.

¶19

In view thereof, Mr Godbole does not press this petition.

¶20

The learned trial Judge shall issue witness summons to persons mentioned in the list marked as “X”, as also officer attached to Sub Registrar's office, Pune for producing relevant

¶21

3 / 3 WP/2859/2016

¶22

¶23

7 Petition is disposed of as not pressed. Order accordingly.

Sai Service Agency Bombay Limited v. Bapu Sonu Gaikwad (Since Decd) through Lrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sai Service Agency Bombay Limited v. Bapu Sonu Gaikwad (Since Decd) through Lrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Vasant Laxman Mazire (Since Decd) through Lrs. and Ors. Vs Shri Kisan Rambhau Mazire and Ors.

Vipul M Kothari Vs Bharti Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.

The State Bank of India Vs the Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.

Rajesh Chunilal Meghani Vs the Andheri Recreation Club and Ors.

Abdul Gani Abdul Majid Dongre and Ors. Vs Liyakat Abdullah Dhole and Ors.

Rajiyabano Mohammadh Ramjan and Ors. Vs Raizwan Ahmed Mohammadh Ramjan