Allowed

Jawed Khan Developers Pvt. Ltd. through Its Directors Jawed Khan Wahed Khan and Another v. Shivaji Tukaram Sangale

Bombay HC20 Jul 2023WP/1331/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a trial court order directing a defendant to produce an agreement the defendant denied possessing. It held that production cannot be compelled when the document is not in custody and quashed the lower order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 12/12/2022 quashed; Application Exhibit-28 rejected.

Jawed Khan Developers Pvt. Ltd. through Its… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 918-WP-1331-23.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1331 OF 2023

¶4

JAWED KHAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS JAWED KHAN WAHED KHAN AND ANOTHER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

SHIVAJI TUKARAM SANGALE

¶7

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh R. Sonawane Advocate for Respondent : Mr. R.V. Gore

¶8

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

¶9

DATE : 20^th JULY, 2023

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the order dated 12/12/2022, passed by learned 5^th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, below Exhibit-28 in Special Civil Suit No.192/2018, thereby directing petitioner to produce documents on record.

¶12

Respondent/plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No.192/2018 for recovery of amount of Rs.26 Lakhs against petitioner/defendant. Defendant appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement. After framing of issues, the matter is posted for evidence of plaintiff. Plaintiff filed application Exhibit-28 for issuing direction to the defendant for production of agreement dated 14/06/2017, executed between the plaintiff and defendant before notary. The said application is the base of filing the suit by plaintiff.

¶13

SVH

¶14

2 918-WP-1331-23.odt

¶15

Defendant by filing say opposed the prayer contending that the agreement is not in his custody. Trial Court has allowed the application Exhibit-28 and directed defendant to produce original agreement dated 14/06/2017, on record, on or before the next date. Hence, the present petition.

¶16

Heard learned advocate for petitioner and learned advocate for respondent. Perused the writ petition memo, annexures thereto and the impugned order.

¶17

Learned advocate for respondent by placing reliance on Rule 14 of Order 7 submits that Trial Court is justified in allowing application Exhibit-28.

¶18

Trial Court has allowed the application merely on the ground that there is no specific denial on the part of defendant about custody of the said agreement or about execution of the agreement. Defendant has not mentioned about custody of the agreement is with the plaintiff. Therefore, Trial Court has observed that “it appears to me that the custody of original agreement is apparently with the defendant”.

¶19

The impugned order is unsustainable as the defendant has categorically denied that he is having agreement in his possession. In this situation, he cannot be compelled to produce the

¶20

SVH

¶21

3 918-WP-1331-23.odt

¶22

document which is not in his custody. Plaintiff can, if so advised, prefer application for leading secondary evidence of the said agreement. In the result, following order:-

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(I) Writ petition is allowed.

¶25

(II) Impugned order dated 12/12/2022, passed by learned 5^th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, below Exhibit-28 in Special Civil Suit No.192/2018, is quashed and set aside.

¶26

(III) Application Exhibit-28 is rejected with liberty to the plaintiff to file appropriate application, as is permissible in law.

¶27

(NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

¶28

SVH

Jawed Khan Developers Pvt. Ltd. through Its Directors Jawed Khan Wahed Khan and Another v. Shivaji Tukaram Sangale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jawed Khan Developers Pvt. Ltd. through Its Directors Jawed Khan Wahed Khan and Another v. Shivaji Tukaram Sangale

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

Shruti Satish Kale and Others through Guardian Grandmother Moharbai Suresh Galphade Vs Chairman District Legal Services Authroity Beed and Honble Principal District Judge and Others

Pravin Popat Darade and Others Vs Pralhad Kalyan Vanve

Sunil Bapurao Kolte and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through District Collector and Others

Ashok Bansilal Bora Vs Roshanbi Abdul Kadar Deceased and Others

Ordnance Factory Kamgar Union Throgh Office President Rajendra Navinchandra Zha Vs Nilesh Vijay Deshmukh and Others

Shrikant Ramakant Avhad Vs Gaurav Rajendra Bhalerao and Others