Petitioners filed a writ petition challenging an order dismissing an application for production of documents in Appeal No. 24 of 2018. The High Court held that since the petitioners' separate appeals were already dismissed for default, no case was made out for interference.
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.
KVM
1/5
914 - WP 869 OF 2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KANCHAN Digitally signed byKANCHAN VINOD VINOD MAYEKAR MAYEKAR Date: 2024.02.02 11:12:38+0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 869 OF 2024
Nargis Majid Oomerbhoy & Anr.….. Petitioners
VERSUS
Farida Areshi Irani & Ors.….. Respondents
Ms.Kanchan Pandare for the Petitioners.
Mr.Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Counsel a/w. Mr.Prateek Pansare,
Ms.Shlesha Sheth, Ms.Kalyani Deshmukh i/b. FZB Associates for
the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM: RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 24 JANUARY, 2024
P.C. :-
This writ petition filed by the original defendant no.7A and
original defendant no.7C, challenging the impugned order dated
3 January, 2024 passed on order below Ex.61 in Appeal No. 24 of
2018.
2. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 had filed a suit for eviction on
the grounds of subletting, additions and alterations and nuisance
before the Court of Small Causes under the Rent Act. The said
suit was decreed on the ground of nuisance, subletting, waste
and damage and alternate accommodation.
2/5
KVM
914 - WP 869 OF 2024.doc
3. Being dissatisfied with the eviction decree, three appeals
were filed viz. (i) Appeal No. 253 of 2017 by defendant no.7A
(Nargis), (ii) Appeal No. 24 of 2018 by defendant no.7B
(Nadeem) and (iii) Appeal No. 252 of 2017 by defendant no.7C
(Heena).
4.Ms.Pandare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the appeals filed by Nargis and Heena were
dismissed for default. She further submits that Marji Application
for restoration filed against the dismissal order were also
rejected. She further submits that the said order dismissed for
default and Marji Application, thereafter have not been
challenged as of date by Nargis and Heena.
5.Mr.Dhond, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent nos. 1 to 3, submits that Appeal No. 24 of 2018 filed
by Nadeem was thereafter heard. And on 11 December, 2023, the
arguments on behalf of Nadeem was concluded. He further
submits that the advocates for petitioners herein i.e. Heena and
KVM
3/5
914 - WP 869 OF 2024.doc
Nargis, made their arguments on 14 December, 2023, and the
matter proceeded further to 15 January, 2023 for rejoinder
arguments to be made on behalf of the plaintiffs. Learned
counsel for the plaintiffs submitted his arguments on 15 January,
2024 and on 19 January, 2024. The matter thereafter proceeded
and was adjourned to 22 January, 2024. On that day, rejoinder
arguments were made by the learned counsel for the
Nadeem/appellant/defendant no.7B.
6.In the meanwhile, on 11 December, 2023, an application
Ex.61 was filed on behalf of Nargis (defendant no.7A) and by
Heena (defendant no.7C). The said application sought
production of certain documents.
7.On 22 January, 2024 and 23 January, 2024 the matter was
kept for further rejoinder submissions to be made on behalf of
Nadeem/appellant/defendant no.7B. Mr.Dhond submits that
however the learned counsel for the
Nadeem/appellant/defendant no.7B did not attend the hearing.
KVM
914 - WP 869 OF 2024.doc
4/5
8.The present writ petition challenges the order dated 3
January, 2024 on application Ex.61 filed by Nadeem/defendant
no.7B. It is pertinent to note that both Nargis and Heena had
filed a separate appeals being Appeal No. 253 of 2017 and
Appeal No. 252 of 2017 respectively challenging the impugned
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Both the appeals
have been dismissed for default. An application challenging an
order of dismissal for default has also been dismissed. The only
appeal pending before the Appellate Bench was Appeal No. 24 of
2018 filed by Nadeem.
9.In the said appeal, the present petitioners were respondent
nos. 11A and 11B. The application sought a direction to the
plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 3 to produce certain documents.
10.Learned counsel for the petitioners is not able to show any
provisions under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to file such an
application. She is also not able to show what difference it will
make to the hearing of the appeal filed by Nadeem when the
914 - WP 869 OF 2024.doc
KVM
5/5
appeals filed by them are already been dismissed. In such a
situation, I hereby conclude that no case is made out to interfere
with the impugned order passed by the Appellate Bench of the
Small Causes Court.
11.Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with an order dismissing an application for production of documents in a pending appeal when the petitioner's separate appeals are dismissed for default.
Whether a case is made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nargis Majid Oomerbhoy
Heena
Farida Areshi Irani
Nadeem
RAJESH S. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court