Dismissed

Kantaram Bhiva Hargude and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Mar 2018WP/1545/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order rejecting an application to lead additional evidence. The Court held the trial Court justified rejection due to 2+ year delay in filing the application. Petitioners permitted to seek evidence from trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no interference with impugned order. Petitioners may request trial court to exhibit documents.

Kantaram Bhiva Hargude and Ors. Vs the State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

osk 919-wp-1545-2018.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1545 OF 2018

¶4

Kantaram Bhiva Hargude & Ors. V/s.	…	Petitioners
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.	…	Respondents

¶5

Mr.T.D. Deshmukh for the Petitioners.

¶6

Ms.Geeta P. Sonawane, Addl. A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶7

CORAM : DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J. DATE : 15^th MARCH, 2018.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

1] Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Addl.

¶10

A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 (State).

¶11

2] By this Writ Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the order dated 7^th December 2017 passed by the 5^th Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, below the Application at Exhibit-120 in Regular Civil Suit No.250 of 2011.

¶12

3] The Application at Exhibit-120 was filed by the present Petitioner, who is the Plaintiff before the trial Court, for seeking

¶13

1/3

¶14

osk 919-wp-1545-2018.odt

¶15

permission to lead additional evidence in respect of the documents, like, the revenue record, which they have obtained subsequently after the closure of their evidence and now they want to prove the said documents.

¶16

4] The trial Court has, by passing the detailed and reasoned order, rejected the said application, finding that these documents were received by the Petitioners much earlier, even before their evidence was closed and now the Respondents/Defendants have also filed the evidence closed pursis.

¶17

5] In my considered opinion, no interference is warranted in the impugned order of the trial Court. It can be seen from the endorsement made on the documents the Certified copies of 7/12 extracts produced at Exhibit-117 that application for getting the copies was moved on 14^th January 2015 and they were supplied to the Petitioners on 17^th January 2015. Similarly, as regards the Certified copy of Mutation Entry No.5056, it was applied on 23^rd September 2010; the copy was made ready on 25^th October 2010. Whereas this application is filed on 20 November 2017 i.e. after the lapse of about more than two years. In such situation, the trial Court was perfectly justified in rejecting such application, in the absence of any explanation offered for permission to lead additional evidence in 2/3

¶18

osk 919-wp-1545-2018.odt

¶19

respect of these documents at this delayed stage, when the suit is fixed for final argument. The impugned order passed by the trial Court, therefore being just, legal and correct; no interference is warranted therein.

¶20

6] The Writ Petition hence being without merit, stands

¶21

dismissed.

¶22

7] At this stage, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that, as all these documents are Certified Copies of 7/12 extracts and Mutation Entry, the trial Court may be requested to exhibit the same. The Petitioners are at liberty to make such request before the trial Court and the trial Court will decide the same in accordance with law.

¶23

[DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]

¶24

3/3

Kantaram Bhiva Hargude and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kantaram Bhiva Hargude and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nanasaheb Dashrath Dhuke Vs Vanita Dattatraya Gaikwad and Ors.

Shri Jayant Bhimsen Joshi and Ors. Vs Shri Raghavendra Bhimsen Joshi and Ors.

Sunil Gunjeshwari Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Rajendra Shashikant Malkar Vs Smt. Rajashri Siidhlinga Swami and Ors.

Bharatiya Kala Prasarini Sabha Ptr No. F/131/PUNE Trhough Its Trustees Vs Shri. Rajeev Baburao Takawale and Ors.

Rajesh Omkarrao Bhagwat Vs Arvindkumar Ramdulare Giri and Anr.