Disposed

Smt. Anjanan Nee Anjubai Uddhav Sankpal and Ors. v. Hirachand Jarinath Shinde and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Feb 2024WP/14130/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Where certified copies of documents have already been marked by the Trial Court and the impugned order does not disturb or prejudice the Defendants' case, interference is unwarranted. The High Court clarified that Defendants may rely on such certified copies during their witness action in rebuttal as primary evidence under Section 62 read with Section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The impugned order dated 05.07.2023 was sustained; all contentions kept open; Trial Court requested to dispose of the 2012 suit within 12 months without unnecessary adjournments.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Anjanan Nee Anjubai Uddhav Sankpal and Ors. Vs… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

P4.WP.14130.2023.doc

¶2

HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.14130 OF 2023

¶6

Anjana @ Anjubai Uddhav Sankpal and Ors. .. Petitioners Versus

¶7

Hirachand Jarinath Shinde and Anr. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Dadhichi S. Mhaispurkar a/w. V. S. Mhaispurkar, Advocates for Petitioners.

¶9

Mr. Sarthak Diwan, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶10

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 16, 2024

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1. Mentioned. Not on Board. Taken on Board.

¶13

2. Heard Mr. Mhaispurkar, learned Advocate for Petitioners

¶14

and Mr. Diwan, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶15

3. Perused the praecipe dated 07.02.2024 and the Writ

¶16

Petition.

¶17

4. The impugned order is at Exhibit-E, page No.34 of the Writ Petition. It is order passed in Application filed by Defendants seeking issuance of production witness summons to an Officer / Employee of the Deputy Engineer, Zilla Parishad, Sub Division – Barshi Tehsil to attend the Court alongwith register maintaining record of beneficiaries under the ‘togkj fofgj ;kstuk’, inter alia, pertaining to the year 2008.

¶18

5. Mr. Mhaispurkar would fairly submit that documents in

¶19

1 of 3

¶20

P4.WP.14130.2023.doc

¶21

evidence namely certified copies in respect of benefit derived by Plaintiffs have already been placed on record and are marked as Exhibits in evidence by the Court. In that regard, he has drawn my attention to page No.31 of the Writ Petition and more specifically paragraph No.4 thereof.

¶22

6. The impugned order infact does not disturb or in any respect prejudice the case of the Defendants who are Petitioners before me. It is a detailed order with cogent reasons stating that Plaintiffs are presently undergoing witness action and pursuant to Plaintiffs’ evidence, if Defendants desire to refer to and rely upon any appropriate witness action then they shall be entitled to rely upon their evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

¶23

7. That apart, considering the fact that Defendants have produced certified copies of the concerned documents, it shall always be open to the Defendants to refer to and rely upon them in and / or during their witness action in rebuttal. Considering that this right has already been reserved and more specifically so because the certified copies of the contentious documents have already been marked by the Trial Court, it is clarified that it shall be open to Defendants to refer to and rely upon the provisions of Section 62 read with Section 64 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 since these documents are primary evidence in the eyes of law.

¶24

2 of 3

¶25

P4.WP.14130.2023.doc

¶26

8. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the order dated 05.07.2023. Hence order dated 05.07.2023 is sustained. Needless to state that all contentions of parties are expressly kept open. In view of the fact that this suit is of the year 2012, at joint request of the learned Advocates for the respective parties, I request the learned Trial Court to dispose of the present suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 12 months from today. Parties to the Suit are directed by this Court not to seek adjournments and the learned Trial Court shall not give any unnecessary adjournments to the parties unless absolutely necessary. Adjournments shall be granted only at the discretion of the Trial Court. Both the learned Advocates have assured the Court that they shall ensure that the suit gets disposed of within the above time frame.

¶27

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

¶28

H. H. SAWANT

¶29

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶30

HARSHADA Digitally signed byHARSHADA HANUMANT HANUMANT SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2024.02.1615:51:34 +0530

¶31

3 of 3

Smt. Anjanan Nee Anjubai Uddhav Sankpal and Ors. v. Hirachand Jarinath Shinde and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Anjanan Nee Anjubai Uddhav Sankpal and Ors. v. Hirachand Jarinath Shinde and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhairu Hari Gaidhani (Deceased through Lrs) Bhimabai Bhairu Gaidhani and Ors. Vs Kamlabai Genu Jadhav (Deceased through Lrs) Ashok Genu Jadhav and Ors.

Ashok Pandurang Pimple and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nanded City Development and Construction Company Ltd. Vs Sunil Champalal Somani and Ors.

Gayatri Sagar Deshmukh vs Sagar Kishor Deshmukh

Navanath Dattatray Lokhande and Anr. Vs Mahadu Hari Alandkar (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Draupadi Mahadu Alandkar

Shabira Sattar Inamdar Since Dec Thr Legal Heirs Vs Imtiyazbi Aminuddin Kazi and Ors.