Applications of the petitioner at Exhibit 216, 217 in the Suit No. 99 of 2004 pending in the Civil Judge, Sr.Division, Pandharpur and Day Application no.614 of 2009 are partly allowed. The trial Court is directed to furnish to the petitioner certified photo copies of the correspondence made by the trial Court regarding the extension of time and the replies received by it as also certified photo copies of the documents which have been proved and exhibited at the trial. The request for grant of certified photo copies of the documents which are not yet proved and exhibited is rejected. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the documents produced by the witness from the Charity Commissioner's office should be exhibited as public documents without their formal proof, the matter is remitted back to the trial Court with the direction to pass a reasoned order on the said request.
As regards the order below Exhibit 217 i.e. on the application for the petitioner to make on his own photo copies of the documents the request cannot be granted as no person can be allowed to take the record of any suit out of the court room whether for photo copying or otherwise. I am however, informed that a photo copying machine is available in the court office at Pandharpur and ordinarily certified copies are issued by photo copying the originals. If so, there can be no objection for grant of certified photo copies. However it needs to be clarified that this order would be restricted only in respect of issuing copies of proved documents and as per the Rules certified copies of the documents which are not yet proved cannot be allowed.
1. Heard petitioner appearing in person and learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned AGP for respondent no.3 State.
2. Rule.
3. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2 WP No.10226/09
4. By this petition, petitioner challenges three orders passed below Exhibit 216, Exhibit 217 and on the Day Application No.614 of 2009 dated 22 August 2009, 28 August 2009 and 18 November 2009 respectively. By exhibit 216, the petitioner prayed that the documents produced by the Charity Commissioner, being original public documents, they should be exhibited. He further prayed that he should be granted certified photo copies of the said documents. By the application at Exhibit 217, petitioner prayed that he should be allowed to make on his own photo copies of certain documents and for the purpose of making those photo copies, a court peon be appointed whose expensed he was willing to bear. By the Day Application no.614 of 2009, petitioner prayed that he may be granted certified copies of the correspondence made by the trial Court for extension of time granted by the High Court for decision of the suit. Apart from thse separate prayers, common prayer in each of the applications was for grant of certified copies of certain documents.
5. It appears that the High Court had given a direction to the trial Court to decide the suit within a specified time. As the suit could not be decided within the specified time, the trial court applied to the High Court for extension of time and that extension appears to have been granted by this Court. Petitioner applied for the certified copies of the said correspondence. Application was rejected on the ground that there was no provision in the civil manual for grant of certified copies of such correspondence. After the civil manual was published decades ago, Right to Information Act has been enacted. It is not disputed before me by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that if the petitioner 3 WP No.10226/09
were to make an application for copies under the Right to Information Act, he would be entitled to such copies. If so, in my view, petitioner ought to have granted the certified copies of the correspondence without citing any technical reason for the refusal. Consequently, Day application deserves to be allowed.
6. As regards the order below Exhibit 217 i.e. on the application for the petitioner to make on his own photo copies of the documents the request cannot be granted as no person can be allowed to take the record of any suit out of the court room whether for photo copying or otherwise. I am however, informed that a photo copying machine is available in the court office at Pandharpur and ordinarily certified copies are issued by photo copying the originals. If so, there can be no objection for grant of certified photo copies. However it needs to be clarified that this order would be restricted only in respect of issuing copies of proved documents and as per the Rules certified copies of the documents which are not yet proved cannot be allowed.
7. As regards the petitioner's contention that the documents, being original public documents, they should be exhibited. The issue requires consideration. The order of the trial court rejecting the prayer for exhibiting the original public document is laconic. The trial Court was required to pass a reasoned order on the application of the petitioner for exhibiting the original public documents without their formal proof. In view of this following order is passed:
4 WP No.10226/09
O R D E R
Applications of the petitioner at Exhibit 216, 217 in the Suit No. 99 of 2004 pending in the Civil Judge, Sr.Division, Pandharpur and Day Application no.614 of 2009 are partly allowed. The trial Court is directed to furnish to the petitioner certified photo copies of the correspondence made by the trial Court regarding the extension of time and the replies received by it as also certified photo copies of the documents which have been proved and exhibited at the trial. The request for grant of certified photo copies of the documents which are not yet proved and exhibited is rejected. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the documents produced by the witness from the Charity Commissioner's office should be exhibited as public documents without their formal proof, the matter is remitted back to the trial Court with the direction to pass a reasoned order on the said request. Writ Petition is disposed of.
(D.G. KARNIK,J.)
Print Page
As regards the order below Exhibit 217 i.e. on the application for the petitioner to make on his own photo copies of the documents the request cannot be granted as no person can be allowed to take the record of any suit out of the court room whether for photo copying or otherwise. I am however, informed that a photo copying machine is available in the court office at Pandharpur and ordinarily certified copies are issued by photo copying the originals. If so, there can be no objection for grant of certified photo copies. However it needs to be clarified that this order would be restricted only in respect of issuing copies of proved documents and as per the Rules certified copies of the documents which are not yet proved cannot be allowed.
Bombay High Court
Bheemacharya Balacharya ... vs Executive Officer, Shree Vithal ... on 2 August, 2010
Bench: D.G. Karnik
1. Heard petitioner appearing in person and learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned AGP for respondent no.3 State.
2. Rule.
3. By consent Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2 WP No.10226/09
4. By this petition, petitioner challenges three orders passed below Exhibit 216, Exhibit 217 and on the Day Application No.614 of 2009 dated 22 August 2009, 28 August 2009 and 18 November 2009 respectively. By exhibit 216, the petitioner prayed that the documents produced by the Charity Commissioner, being original public documents, they should be exhibited. He further prayed that he should be granted certified photo copies of the said documents. By the application at Exhibit 217, petitioner prayed that he should be allowed to make on his own photo copies of certain documents and for the purpose of making those photo copies, a court peon be appointed whose expensed he was willing to bear. By the Day Application no.614 of 2009, petitioner prayed that he may be granted certified copies of the correspondence made by the trial Court for extension of time granted by the High Court for decision of the suit. Apart from thse separate prayers, common prayer in each of the applications was for grant of certified copies of certain documents.
5. It appears that the High Court had given a direction to the trial Court to decide the suit within a specified time. As the suit could not be decided within the specified time, the trial court applied to the High Court for extension of time and that extension appears to have been granted by this Court. Petitioner applied for the certified copies of the said correspondence. Application was rejected on the ground that there was no provision in the civil manual for grant of certified copies of such correspondence. After the civil manual was published decades ago, Right to Information Act has been enacted. It is not disputed before me by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that if the petitioner 3 WP No.10226/09
were to make an application for copies under the Right to Information Act, he would be entitled to such copies. If so, in my view, petitioner ought to have granted the certified copies of the correspondence without citing any technical reason for the refusal. Consequently, Day application deserves to be allowed.
6. As regards the order below Exhibit 217 i.e. on the application for the petitioner to make on his own photo copies of the documents the request cannot be granted as no person can be allowed to take the record of any suit out of the court room whether for photo copying or otherwise. I am however, informed that a photo copying machine is available in the court office at Pandharpur and ordinarily certified copies are issued by photo copying the originals. If so, there can be no objection for grant of certified photo copies. However it needs to be clarified that this order would be restricted only in respect of issuing copies of proved documents and as per the Rules certified copies of the documents which are not yet proved cannot be allowed.
7. As regards the petitioner's contention that the documents, being original public documents, they should be exhibited. The issue requires consideration. The order of the trial court rejecting the prayer for exhibiting the original public document is laconic. The trial Court was required to pass a reasoned order on the application of the petitioner for exhibiting the original public documents without their formal proof. In view of this following order is passed:
4 WP No.10226/09
O R D E R
Applications of the petitioner at Exhibit 216, 217 in the Suit No. 99 of 2004 pending in the Civil Judge, Sr.Division, Pandharpur and Day Application no.614 of 2009 are partly allowed. The trial Court is directed to furnish to the petitioner certified photo copies of the correspondence made by the trial Court regarding the extension of time and the replies received by it as also certified photo copies of the documents which have been proved and exhibited at the trial. The request for grant of certified photo copies of the documents which are not yet proved and exhibited is rejected. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the documents produced by the witness from the Charity Commissioner's office should be exhibited as public documents without their formal proof, the matter is remitted back to the trial Court with the direction to pass a reasoned order on the said request. Writ Petition is disposed of.
(D.G. KARNIK,J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment