Quashed

Purshottam Jagdish Kurdia v. Rekha Purshottam Kurdia and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Oct 2017WP/3771/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay (Criminal Writ Petition No. 3771 of 2017) quashed an order dismissing a Petitioner's application to produce documents. The judgment held that since the documents were referred to in the affidavit-in-evidence, the rejection was erroneous, and the Petitioner was allowed to tender them.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted leave to tender in evidence all documents enlisted in the list of documents annexed to his affidavit-in-evidence.

Purshottam Jagdish Kurdia Vs Rekha Purshottam… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

926_wp_3771_2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3771 OF 2017

¶4

Purshottam Jagdish Kurdia ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rekha Purshottam Kurdia & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Mandar Limaye for the Petitioner. Mr. Anand Kumar Singh i/b. Mr. Rakesh Agrawal for the Respondent No.1 Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for the Respondent No.7-State.

¶8

CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED : 12^th OCTOBER, 2017.

¶9

P.C.:-

¶10

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the

¶11

parties, matter is heard finally.

¶12

The Petitioner herein was the Respondent in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by the Respondent No.1. He has challenged the order dated 15 th September, 2017 whereby the learned Judge dismissed his application for producing documents annexed to the affidavit in evidence.

¶13

Megha

¶14

1/3

¶15

926_wp_3771_2017.doc

¶16

Heard Mr. Mandar Limaye, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Anand Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Mr. Vinod Chate, the learned APP for the Respondent No.7-State.

¶17

The records reveal that the Petitioner had filed his affidavit in evidence on 5th August, 2017. His further examination in chief was recorded on 16th August, 2017. It is not in dispute that examination -in-chief was not concluded on 16th August, 2017 and that the matter was adjourned to the next date for further examination-in-chief. It appears that on the next date both the learned counsels for respective parties had started arguing with each other by raising their voices and had failed to maintain the decorum of the Court, which necessitated the learned Judge to warn both the counsels. It appears that in this ruckus, parties to the proceedings as well as the learned Judge lost sight of the fact that the matter was posted for further examination-inchief, as a result, instead of recording the evidence in chief the learned Judge as well as the parties proceeded with cross-examination of the Petitioner.

¶18

By application dated 15th September, 2017 the Petitioner

¶19

Megha

¶20

2/3

¶21

926_wp_3771_2017.doc

¶22

sought leave to produce the said documents, which were listed in the list of documents annexed to the affidavit. The learned Judge dismissed the said application mainly on the ground that said documents are not referred to in the affidavit-in-evidence. A perusal of the affidavit-in-evidence clearly indicates that the said documents enlisted in the list of documents have been referred to in the affidavitin-evidence. Hence, the observations are not borne out of records.

¶23

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed and set aside. Leave is granted to the Petitioner to tender in evidence all the documents enlisted in the list of the documents annexed to the affidavit in evidence. Needless to state that the Respondents will have an opportunity to cross examine the Petitioner on the said documents.

¶24

7 The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶25

The parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶26

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶27

Megha

¶28

3/3

Purshottam Jagdish Kurdia v. Rekha Purshottam Kurdia and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purshottam Jagdish Kurdia v. Rekha Purshottam Kurdia 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

Employees State Insurance Corporation Pune Vs Lakshmandas Narottamdas Shaha and Another

Milind Gopalrao Gujrathi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Milind Gopalrao Gujrathi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohmad Murshid Jalal Ahmed Ansari Vs the State and Anr.

Swati Sunil Umrani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajesh Kuppuswamy Vs Priya Rajesh and Anr.