Partly allowed

Puroshottam Ramkishan Dhut. v. Solapur Municipal Corporation , Indrabhavan

Bombay HC1 Feb 2024WP/1067/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order allowing interrogatories in a suit for possession. The Court quashed questions intended for indirect cross-examination but directed the respondent to produce the original Gift Deed. Alternatively, the plaintiff was given liberty to apply for a certified copy from the Sub-Registrar.

What did the court decide?

Direction to produce the original Gift Deed; liberty to apply for a certified copy from the Sub-Registrar within four weeks; questions No. 2 to 10 reserved for cross-examination.

Puroshottam Ramkishan Dhut. Vs Solapur Municipal… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

11.wp.1067.24.doc

¶2

Ajay

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1067 OF 2024

¶5

Purshottam Ramkishan DhutPetitioner
..(Orig. Plaintiff)

¶6

Versus
Solapur Municipal Corporation, Indrabhaan,Respondent
Varad Path, Solapur..(Orig. Defendant)

¶7

Mr. Krishnakant P. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶8

CORAM :MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE :FEBRUARY 01, 2024.

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1. Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for Petitioner.

¶11

2. This Writ Petition takes exception to the order dated

¶12

14.09.2023 passed in Application below Exhibit “51” in Regular Civil
Suit No.221 of 2017 pursuant to an order passed under Exhibit “46”
dated 05.08.2023 enabling the Plaintiff to file interrogatories to the
Defendant. In all there were 10 questions in the interrogatories which
is filed. The Suit is filed for possession and the subject matter of
possession is based on a registered Gift Deed, original of which is with
the Defendant – Corporation.

¶13

3. One of the principal submission of the Plaintiff was for seeking production of the original Gift Deed for which a witness

¶14

1 of 4

¶15

11.wp.1067.24.doc

¶16

summons was issued calling upon the Corporation to produce the
original registered Gift Deed dated 07.10.1995.

¶17

4. Mr. Deshmukh has drawn my attention to the order dated 09.12.2022 which finds mention in the impugned order dated 14.09.2023. This order was passed below Exhibit “33” which is at Exhibit “D” - page No.30 of the Writ Petition and records that the custody of the original registered Gift Deed under No.2590 dated 25.07.1995 has not been denied by the Corporation.

¶18

5. In that view of the matter, a specific direction has been issued to the Corporation to produce the said original document on the file and record of Regular Civil Suit No.221 of 2017 within 15 days from the date of the said order.

¶19

6. Mr. Deshmukh would contend that the same has not been produced which led to the Plaintiff to file Application below Exhibit “51”. On perusal of the order dated 09.12.2022, it is clear that once the document has been admitted by the Corporation as recorded in paragraph No.2 of the order dated 09.12.2022, the directions given by the learned Trial Court need to be complied with by the Defendant Corporation.

¶20

7. However, if the Defendant does not place the original document on record, liberty has been given by the Trial Court to the Plaintiff to prove the said document in accordance with the provisions

¶21

2 of 4

¶22

11.wp.1067.24.doc

¶23

of the Evidence Act, 1872 and lead appropriate evidence.

¶24

8. Hence in the first instance, the Corporation is directed to produce the document which has not been denied by it and it has been so recorded by the Court in its order dated 09.12.2022 wherein it is reiterated that it shall also be open to the Plaintiff to avail any other mode of proving the document available to the Plaintiff under the Evidence Act and accordingly lead evidence in that regard.

¶25

9. In so far as question Nos.2 to 10 in the interrogatories are concerned, Mr. Deshmukh has drawn my attention to those questions which are at Exhibit “E” - page No.31 to the Writ Petition. Prima facie, perusal of all 9 questions reveal one thing, that these questions are infact consequential questions subject to production of the registered Gift Deed. The manner in which the said questions have been framed in interrogatories clearly are in the nature of extracting answers in cross-examination and that has weighed with the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order.

¶26

10. It is well settled proposition that under the garb of administering interrogatories, cross-examination of the opponent cannot be allowed indirectly. Perusal of the impugned order further reveals that the learned Trial Court has infact acknowledged that the said questions may be relevant but only in cross-examination of the Defendant – Corporation.

¶27

3 of 4

¶28

11.wp.1067.24.doc

¶29

11. Hence, the right of the Petitioner / Plaintiff to ask the said questions being question Nos.2 to 10 in the interrogatories is not curtailed and is expressly kept open in cross-examination in accordance with law and if so permissible.

¶30

12. In that view of the above, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order save and except the directions given by this Court in so far as the answer to interrogatories question No.1 is concerned. The rest of the order is sustained.

¶31

13. It is further directed that it shall also be open for the Plaintiff to apply for a certified copy of the registered Gift Deed from the concerned Sub-Registrar. If any such Application is made, the concerned Sub-Registrar of Assurance, Solapur shall arrange to give a certified copy of the registered Gift Deed to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of making of such Application strictly in accordance with law on payment of appropriate charges.

¶32

14. With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed.

¶33

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶34

Ajay

¶35

Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE UGALMUGALE Date: 2024.02.01 18:10:32 +0530

¶36

4 of 4

Puroshottam Ramkishan Dhut. v. Solapur Municipal Corporation , Indrabhavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puroshottam Ramkishan Dhut. v. Solapur Municipal Corporation , Indrabhavan

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

Sagar Raosaheb Kulkarni Vs Banshi Shankar Ghadge and Ors.

Vilas Dagdu Shete Vs Nanda Namdeo Patil and Ors.

Rahul Vasantlal Lodha Vs Bin Hussain Stud Farm Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Galaxy Promoters and Builders Vs Mahendra Narsingh Loankar and Ors.

Dadabhau Khandu Fulsundar Since Decd. Thr His Legal Heirs vs Ali Usman Pathan Since Decd. Thr Legal Heirs

Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Barshi vs Rajkumar Arvind Veer, and Ors.