Disposed

M/S Yashodeep Construction Company Thr. Its Partner Vijay Jawaharlal Jain v. Matruchaya Coopertive Housing Society Ltd. Thr. Its Chairman Popatlal C. Bagmar

Bombay HC11 Nov 2024WP/14955/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging Revision order setting aside Trial Court direction to permit additional evidence on membership dispute. Petitioner argued documents are relevant despite age. Court directed Trial Court to defer final arguments by four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court directed to defer final proceedings by four weeks to permit petitioner to lead additional evidence.

M/S Yashodeep Construction Company Thr. Its Partner… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

903-WP-14955-24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.14955 OF 2024.

¶4

M/s. Yashodeep Construction Company thr.

¶5

Its Partner Vijay Jawaharlal Jain

¶6

...Petitioner.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Matruchaya Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Thr. Its Chairman Popatlal C. Bagmar

¶9

...Respondent.

¶10

Mr. S. S. Panchpor a/w. Ms. N. S. Mahadik, Mr. Aashay Rabade for the Petitioner.

¶11

——————

¶12

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : 23^rd October, 2024.

¶13

P. C. :

¶14

1. By this petition, the challenge is to the order dated 23^rd September 2024 passed by the Appellate Court in Revision filed by Respondent over turning the order of the Trial Court allowing the application filed by the present Petitioner for leading additional evidence on the issue of admission of the Petitioner as member of the Society.

¶15

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that after the evidence was led Respondent Society filed pursis that they do not want to lead any evidence. He submits that subsequently

¶16

1 of 3

¶17

rsk

¶18

903-WP-14955-24.doc

¶19

certain documents as regards treating the Petitioner as member of the Society came into hands of the Petitioner and therefore application was moved for leading additional evidence which was permitted by the Trial Court. Pointing out to the findings of the Appellate Court, he submits that the solitary reason for over turning the findings of the Trial Court is that documents were available for near about 18 years. He further submits that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shantibai K. Vardhan and Ors. vs. Meera G. Patel and Anr.¹ has held that by virtue of omission of Rule 17-A of Order 18 of CPC does not result in taking away power of the Court to permit parties to produce additional documents.

¶20

3. From the decision which has been produced on record Division Bench of this Court has specifically held that the omission of Rule 17A of Order 18 of CPC does not divest the Court of the power to permit production of additional documents. As such there is judicial pronouncement supporting the application of the Petitioner for production of additional documents. It also cannot be disputed that prima facie as the issue as regards membership of the Petitioner was in dispute, the documents which are stated to pertain to treating of the Petitioner as member of the Society are relevant for effective adjudication of the dispute. The same finding has been arrived at by 1 2008 SCC Online Bom 825

¶21

2 of 3

¶22

rsk

¶23

903-WP-14955-24.doc

¶24

the Trial Court. Prima facie it appears that the Appellate Court has taken into consideration the date of documents without noticing that the document was sought to be produced during the dispute and as such the date on which the documents were executed are irrelevant and what was required to be considered was the relevancy of the documents to the subject matter in dispute.

¶25

4. This Court is informed that the matter is fixed today for final arguments before the Trial Court. Considering the above, the Trial Court is requested to defer the proceedings by a period of 4 weeks from today.

¶26

5. List petition for further consideration on 11^th November 2024.

¶27

6. Issue notice to the Respondents returnable on 11^th November 2024. In addition to Court notice, Petitioners to serve the Respondents by private notice and file affidavit of service before the next date. pvt.

¶28

7. All concerned to act on authenticated copy of this order.

¶29

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

¶30

3 of 3

¶31

rsk

¶32

Signed by: Rajeshwari S. Karve Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 23/10/2024 14:34:35

M/S Yashodeep Construction Company Thr. Its Partner Vijay Jawaharlal Jain v. Matruchaya Coopertive Housing Society Ltd. Thr. Its Chairman Popatlal C. Bagmar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Yashodeep Construction Company Thr. Its Partner Vijay Jawaharlal Jain v. Matruchaya Coopertive Housing Society Ltd. Thr. Its Chairman Popatlal C. Bagmar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Salim Abdul Wahab Shaikh vs Rohit Yogendra Bhalunkar and Ors.

Arnica Enterprises Private Limited through Authorised Signatory vs Irel (India) Limited

Gti Infotel Private Limited vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited through Chairman and Managing Director

M/S. Shantinath Developers (Virar) C/O. Mr. Kirit K. Mehta vs Competent Officer and District Deputy Registrar and Anr.

Mukund Sitaram Tambe and Ors. vs Yashwant Shankar Tambe and Ors.

Dilip Shankar Yamgar vs State of Maharashtra