Shri. Babasaheb Charudatta Koruche and Ors. Vs Shobha Shantinath Gath @ Shobha Charudatta Koruche

The writ petition arises out of a suit for partition where the plaintiff issued notice to defendant No.6 and other defendants under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Order 11, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Though according to defendants they did not receive the notice; however, the Trial Court recorded a finding that the notice was served on defendant No.6. Notice sent to other defendants is received by the Advocate.

¶14

The Trial Court, therefore, exercised discretion directing

¶15

1

¶16

4-wp-11002-2022.doc

¶17

defendant Nos.1 to 6 & 7 to produce original documents enlisted in the instant application. There is no perversity in the impugned order. In absence of failure of justice or error of jurisdiction, interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is uncalled for.

¶18

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

¶19

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶20

2

Shri. Babasaheb Charudatta Koruche and Ors. v. Shobha Shantinath Gath @ Shobha Charudatta Koruche

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Babasaheb Charudatta Koruche and Ors. v. Shobha Shantinath Gath @ Shobha Charudatta Koruche

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

Ramchandra Ganapati Shinde Vs Smt. Indubai Bhagavan Yewale and Ors.

Dr. Sulabha Pranab Biswas and Ors. Vs Jayant Trimbak Patil and Ors.

Sharmishtha K. Patel Vs Chemofine Industries and Ors.

Kailas Anna Atole Vs Mrs. Jayashree Kailas Atole

Raju Mhalappa Khandekar and Anr. Vs Shankar Tukaram Kokare and Ors.

Abhay Dattatray Kulkarni and Ors. Vs Vitthal Gopala Tibile