Dismissed¶¶14

Bajaj Stores, through Proprietor Mr. Tekchand Jethanand Bajaj and Others v. Bandu Bhaurao Kasar

Bombay HC3 Jul 2025WP/783/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC Nagpur Bench, WRIT PETITION NO. 783/2022, decided 03.07.2025 (Vrushali V. Joshi, J.): writ petition by defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.60/2017 (ejection/possession/arrears of rent/damages on bona fide need) against rejection of their application to produce sanction map dismissed; Order VII Rule 14 CPC correctly applied; sanction map unnecessary as description of suit property already given; respondent served but absent.

What did the court decide?

The learned Trial Court rightly considered the defendants' application by observing the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code. ¶¶14

Bajaj Stores, through Proprietor Mr. Tekchand Jethanand Bajaj and Others Vs Bandu Bhaurao Kasar — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:6257

¶2

1 43.wp783.22.odt

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 783/2022

¶5

Bajaj Stores through its Proprietor Mr. Tekchand Jethanand Bajaj and Ors. Vs.

¶6

Bandu Bhaurao Kasar

¶7

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

¶8

Mr. R. D. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶9

CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J. DATED : 03.07.2025

¶10

The respondent though served, has not appeared before the Court. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

¶11

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 07.08.2021 passed below Exhibit-16 in Regular Civil Suit No.60/2017 for production of documents. The petitioners are the defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.60/2017 and the respondent is plaintiff landlord. The plaintiff has filed a suit for Ejection, Possession And Arrears of Rent and Damages on the ground of bona fide need. One of the grounds of the plaintiff is that the suit property is required to start the business for the wife of the plaintiff.

¶12

The defence of the defendants is that the plaintiff has an alternate accommodation and is not in need of said shop. To prove the contentions, defendants have filed an application to produce sanction map on record. However, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati has rejected the prayer of the defendants for production of sanction map.

¶13

2 43.wp783.22.odt

¶14

The learned Trial Court has rightly considered said application by observing the provisions of order VII Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code. The description of the suit property is already given. There is no need to produce the sanction map to prove the defence of the petitioners i.e. defendants. There is no substance in the petition filed by the petitioners. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.

¶15

RGurnule

Bajaj Stores, through Proprietor Mr. Tekchand Jethanand Bajaj and Others v. Bandu Bhaurao Kasar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajaj Stores, through Proprietor Mr. Tekchand Jethanand Bajaj and Others v. Bandu Bhaurao Kasar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh S/O. Rameshlal Kriplani vs State of Maharashtra Thr P.S.O. Kapilngar P.S. Nagpur

Hemandas Dayalda Motwani and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. Kapil Nagar, Nagpur City, Nagpur

Maharashtra Electrosmelt Kamgar Union, Thr. General Secretary, Shri. Chandrashekhar M. Podey Vs M/S Chandrapur Ferro Alloys Plant, Chandrapur through Its Executive Director Adn Another

Dr. Anil Shobha Rathod and Another Vs Dr. Pankaj Bharatlal Jaiswal

Shrikant Surendra Chandakhede C/O Jitendrasingh Patle Vs Snehal Shrikant Chandankhede

Roshani Maihmood Burondkar vs Maihmood Fajaluddin Burondkar