The Court dismissed the application seeking production of additional documents on the ground that they were not relevant to the pleaded case regarding repayment of loan installments. The Court held the documents were unnecessary for adjudicating the dispute.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
5------CAS-124-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.124 OF 2019 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.740 OF 2018 IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.177 OF 2018
Smt. Indumati Bhimashankar Surwase Versus
Vithal Pirappa Aarvat and Anr.
...Applicant.
...Respondents.
Mr. Nitin Gaware-Patil and Mr. Divyesh Jain i/b Mr. Abhishek D. Nagode for the applicant.
Mr. Samir Kumbhakoni for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : 17th April, 2024.
P. C. :
documents. In the said Application the pleading is that the documents were not available with the applicant during the pendency of the suit and therefore could not be produced. The documents which are sought to be produced is affidavit of the original plaintiff stating that the entire amount has been received by him. The document appears to be of 19th November 2002 and the second document is of 13th November 2002 which is receipt by which the
1 of 2
rsk
5------CAS-124-19.doc
plaintiff admits that the property has been sold to defendant and she had become owner thereof. There is no such case which has been pleaded by the defendant that on 19th November 2002 the entire consideration had been paid and as such nothing remained to be paid. On the contrary, the specific case of the defendant is that terms of agreement provided for repayment of the loan installments by the defendant. That being the case the documents now sought to be produced are not required to be considered into evidence in absence of any such case being put up by the Defendant. The said documents are thus not necessary for adjudication of the present dispute. Civil Application stands dismissed.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
2 of 2
rsk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether documents produced late, which contradict the defendant's pleaded case, are necessary for adjudication?
Smt. Indumati Bhimashankar Surwase
Vithal Pirappa Aarvat and Anr.
Sharmila U. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
