Sau. Asha Sudhakar Gujar v. Jayant Mahendra Sapkal

Bombay HC12 Dec 2025WP/1357/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: exhibition/marking of document; Agreement to Sale; improper stamping; non-registration; recital of delivery of possession; Exhibit-18; objection to exhibit; quashing of exhibition order; direction to decide objection afresh; recall application rejected; Full Bench reference Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia v. Subodh Mody [2008(6) Mh.L.J. 886]; interim stay of R.C.S. No. 321/2019; 7th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Akola; notice returnable 21/4/2025. Stage: notice/ad-interim stage only — no holding on the merits; not citable for any proposition of law.

What did the court decide?

Interim order: notice to the respondent, returnable on 21/4/2025, and stay, in the meantime, to the proceedings in R.C.S. No. 321/2019 pending before the 7th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Akola. No ruling on the merits of the objection. ¶¶17

Sau. Asha Sudhakar Gujar vs Jayant Mahendra Sapkal — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the 'Agreement to Sale' tendered by the respondent-plaintiff, containing a recital of delivery of possession and alleged to be neither properly stamped nor duly registered, could be exhibited notwithstanding the petitioner's objection. +1 more

¶¶10

Ratio / Principle

Notice ordered to be issued to the respondent, returnable on 21/4/2025.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

In the meantime, interim stay granted to the proceedings in R.C.S. No. 321/2019 pending before the 7th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Akola.ratio¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim order — High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench (Anil L. Pansare, J.), Writ Petition No. 1357 of 2025, Sau. Asha Sudhakar Gujar v. Jayant Mahendra Sapkal, 17 March 2025. The petition arises out of the petitioner's objection to exhibition of a document titled 'Agreement to Sale', tendered by the respondent-plaintiff in chief examination, containing a recital of delivery of possession and alleged to be neither properly stamped nor duly registered. The trial Court had exhibited the agreement vide order dated 6/3/2023; that order was quashed and set aside by this Court vide order dated 13/2/2024 in Writ Petition No. 5835/2023, with a direction to decide the objection afresh. Despite the direction, the trial Court passed an order dated 19/8/2024 postponing decision on the objection on the ground that the agreement already stood marked Exhibit-18, and by order dated 17/12/2024 rejected the petitioner's application to recall, which had quoted the Full Bench decision in Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia Vs. Subodh Mody [2008(6) Mh.L.J. 886]. The Court issued notice to the respondent, returnable on 21/4/2025, and in the meantime stayed the proceedings in R.C.S. No. 321/2019 pending before the 7th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Akola. No ruling on merits; the Full Bench precedent is only referred (invoked by counsel), not applied.

¶1

¶2

13-WP-1357-2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1357 OF 2025

¶5

(Sau. Asha Sudhakar Gujar Vs. Jayant Mahendra Sapkal)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,__________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

¶7

Mr. A.R. Deshpande, Counsel for the petitioner.

¶8

CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE, J. MARCH 17, 2025

¶9

Heard.

¶10

2] The petition arises out of an objection raised by the petitioner to exhibit a document titled ‘Agreement to Sale’, which was tendered by the respondent – plaintiff in chief examination. The objection to exhibit the document is taken on the ground that the agreement to sale, which contains recital of delivery of possession, was neither properly stamped nor duly registered. The trial Court had exhibited the agreement vide order dated 6/3/2023. This order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition No. 5835/2023, and vide order dated 13/2/2024, the impugned order was quashed and set aside with a direction to the trial Court to decide the objection raised by the petitioner afresh.

¶11

3] Despite such direction, the trial Court has passed the impugned order on 19/8/2024 postponing the decision on objection on the ground that the agreement to sale has been already marked Exhibit – 18.

¶12

¶13

13-WP-1357-2025

¶14

4] The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the order dated 6/3/2023, exhibiting agreement to sale, was quashed and set aside, there arises no question of document having been exhibited. He submits that in any case, the objection, as raised, ought to have been decided by the trial Court in terms of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia Vs. Subodh Mody [2008(6) Mh.L.J. 886].

¶15

5] In fact, the petitioner had filed application to recall the order by quoting the aforesaid judgment. However, the trial Court was pleased to reject the application vide impugned order dated 17/12/2024.

¶16

6] Issue notice to the respondent returnable on 21/4/2025.

¶17

7] In the meantime, there shall be stay to the proceedings being R.C.S. No. 321/2019 pending before 7^th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Akola.

¶18

(ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)

¶19

Sumit

¶20

Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 17/03/2025 18:58:18

Sau. Asha Sudhakar Gujar v. Jayant Mahendra Sapkal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sau. Asha Sudhakar Gujar v. Jayant Mahendra Sapkal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

United Biotech (P) Limited, New Delhi Thr. Directors, Ashwini Kumar Vs Sanjaykumar S/O Chandrabhan Satpute

Smt. Nirmala Bichmaiyya Kulmethe and Others vs the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Ors.

Harshal S/O Madhukar Khakse vs Sanjiwani W/O Harshal Khakse

Municipal Council Pusad, Thr. Chief Officer, Yavatmal vs Assistant Provident Fund, Commissioner, Akola and Anr.

Rajkumar Pandhari Ingle vs Ashwin Arvind Jaiswal and Others

Alok Madhukar Ghate vs Swati Sudhakar Bawane