Disposed¶26

Prabhavati Harishchandra Biradar through Power of Attorney Dhananjay Harishchandra Biradar v. Nilawati Shivajirao Salunke and Others

Bombay HC5 May 2025WP/8686/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Handwriting expert bhatta dispute; witness summons issuance; application Exh. 162 rejected by Trial Court on 07.11.2023 and set aside by High Court; Rs. 16,500/- bhatta demand dated 20.07.2023; Rs. 7,000/- pre-deposit; relevancy of expert evidence not doubted once witness summons issued; RCS No. 54/2015 pending since 2015; six-month disposal direction to Trial Court; Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad; Judge R. M. Joshi; decided 05.05.2025; Respondents unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 07.11.2023 set aside; application Exh. 162 stands allowed subject to the Petitioner depositing the balance bhatta amount before the next date of hearing; fresh witness summons to the handwriting expert upon deposit; Trial Court directed to decide RCS No. 54/2015 on merit within six months. ¶26

1.None for Respondents. Order dated 19.08.2024 passed by this Court indicates that notice was issued to Respondents for disposal of the Petition finally on returnable date. Absence of Respondents indicate that

54/2015. He filed application for referring the disputed document to the handwriting expert. An order came to be passed on 11.12.2019 to that effect by the Trial Court. The report came to be received from the handwriting expert on 11.07.2020. It is thereafter Defendant examined himself and his evidence was over on

27.01.2022. In July, 2022 application was filed for issuance of witness summons to handwriting expert. Handwriting expert by communication dated 20.07.2023 has called upon the Petitioner/Defendant No. 1 to pay Rs. 16,500/-. Initially Petitioner was not prepared to pay this amount and insisted for payment of bhatta as provided by the rules. In this backdrop, application filed vide Exh. 162 came to be rejected by the Trial Court by impugned order dated 07.11.2023.

3.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, makes statement that Petitioner/Original Defendant No. 1 is ready to deposit Rs. 16,500/- with Trial Court towards bhatta payable to the handwriting expert, out of which a sum of Rs. 7000/- has already been deposited in Trial Court and has ready to deposit balance amount on next date of hearing before Trial Court.

summons to the handwriting expert, the relevancy of the evidence to be led by said witness cannot be doubted. The issue arose before the Trial Court is about payment of bhatta as claimed by handwriting expert as per

rules, however, in view of statement made by the Petitioner about payment of Rs. 16,500/- claimed by handwriting expert, nothing survives for decision on the said issue. In the interest of justice, impugned order dated 07.11.2023 is set aside. Subject to Petitioner depositing balance amount as undertaken before next date of hearing before Trial Court, application Exh. 162 stands allowed.

5.If the amount is deposited, witness summons be issued afresh to the handwriting expert. Since the suit is pending from year 2015, the Trial Court is directed to decide the same on merit within a period of six months from today.

Prabhavati Harishchandra Biradar through Power of Attorney Dhananjay Harishchandra Biradar v. Nilawati Shivajirao Salunke and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhavati Harishchandra Biradar through Power of Attorney Dhananjay Harishchandra Biradar v. Nilawati Shivajirao Salunke and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Sumati Suresh Sawant and Ors.

Sanjeet Singh Ramsukh Singh @ Sanjit Ramsukh Singh @ Samjit Ramsukh Singh vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilesh Govind Karale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Pradip Vishwanath Waghmare vs Kanhoor Pathar Co. Operative Credit Society Ltd. through Its Recovery Officer and Others

Shahezad Shaikh Saleem vs the State of Maharashtra

Sanjay Madhukar Tambadi vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.