Allowed

Harsg Malhotra v. Vinodkumar Dhanuka and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Sept 2024WP/12209/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged a Co-operative Court order rejecting secondary evidence of photocopies for lack of foundation and a separate application. Relying on precedent that no separate application is needed, the High Court quashed the order, permitting an additional affidavit laying the foundation under Sections 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29 July 2024 quashed and set aside; liberty to file additional affidavit of evidence laying foundation for secondary evidence.

Harsg Malhotra vs Vinodkumar Dhanuka and Ors. — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

8 Wp-12209-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 12209 OF 2024

Harsh Malhotra.

...Petitioner.

Versus

Vinodkumar Dhanuka and Others.

¶8

...Respondents.

¶9

Mr. Piyush Raheja and Ms. Dhanashree Gaikaiwari i/b Bilawala & Co., for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Vipul Shukla i/b Jayesh Vyas for the Respondent No. 3 and 5. Respondent No.1 present in-person.

¶11

——————

¶12

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : October 24, 2024.

¶13

P. C. :

¶14

1. Heard.

¶15

2. By this petition, the challenge is to the order dated 29^th July 2024 passed by the Co-operative Court by which the secondary evidence sought to be led in respect of the documents at Serial Nos.3 to 6, 8 and 9 was rejected for the reasons that no foundation for leading secondary evidence has been laid in the Affidavit of evidence and no application is filed by the Petitioner for leading secondary evidence.

¶16

3. As far as the filing of separate application for leading secondary evidence is concerned, learned Single Judge of this Court in

¶17

1 of 3

¶18

Patil-SR

¶19

8 Wp-12209-2024.doc

¶20

Parasanbai v. Sunanda¹ has held that no application shall be necessitated for the purpose of leading secondary evidence.

¶21

4. As far as rejection on the basis of absence of necessary foundation for leading secondary evidence is concerned, perusal of the affidavit of evidence of Petitioner would indicate that the deposition in the Affidavit of evidence in lieu of examination in chief does not lay any foundation for leading secondary evidence as per Section 65 and Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. At the same time, it needs to be considered that the documents on which the reliance is sought to be placed are the photocopies of documents, the original whereof are in possession of the Respondent No.2-Society and notice under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is stated to have been given to the Respondent No.2-Society by the Petitioner.

¶22

5. Considering the absence of necessary foundation for leading secondary evidence, in order to secure the ends of justice, the impugned order dated 29^th July 2024 can be quashed and set aside and opportunity can be given to the Petitioner to file an additional affidavit of evidence laying down necessary foundation for leading secondary evidence in respect of the documents at Serial Nos. 3 to 6, 8 and 9.

¶23

6. Respondent No.1-Mr. Dhanuka who appears in-person would only object to the stay granted by this Court and does not oppose the

¶24

1 2018(1) Mh.L.J. 788.

¶25

2 of 3

¶26

Patil-SR

¶27

8 Wp-12209-2024.doc

¶28

filing of additional affidavit of evidence by the Petitioner.

¶29

7. In the light of above, impugned order dated 29^th July 2024 is hereby quashed and set aside. Liberty to the Petitioners to file an appropriate additional affidavit of evidence for leading secondary evidence in respect of the documents stated above. The said affidavit of evidence to be considered by the Co-operative Court on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made in the order dated 29^th July 2024. It is made clear that all contentions of all the parties are expressly kept open.

¶30

8. Writ Petition is allowed in above terms.

¶31

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

¶32

3 of 3

¶33

Patil-SR

¶34

Signed by: Sachin R. Patil Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 25/10/2024 20:55:52

Harsg Malhotra v. Vinodkumar Dhanuka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harsg Malhotra v. Vinodkumar Dhanuka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S. Nikam and Nikam through Partner Sou. Revati C Patil Vs Shashikant Narayan Dalvi and Ors.

M/S. Nikam and Nikam through Partner Sou. Revati C Patil Vs Shashikant Narayan Dalvi and Ors.

M/S. Nikam and Nikam through Partner Sou. Revati C Patil Vs Dhanraj Shashikant Dalvi and Ors.

Marico Limited vs Zenith Industries

Pandurang Baburao Khot vs Ld. Joint Charity Commissioner Kolhapur Division and Ors.

Hambirrao Appaso Desai vs Krushnat Ramchandra Sutar and Ors.