Though
the documents sought to be produced were certified copies
of 7/12 extracts, the trial court found that the copies of the
documents were not filed at an appropriate stage. The court
was of the view that the petitioner had not stated any reason
much less any cogent reason for filing the application at a
belated stage, specially when the case was fixed for evidence
of the petitioner. Merely because the trial court had referred
to the provisions of Order 13 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure and had not referred to the provisions of Order 8
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot be said that
the impugned order is not just and proper. Even otherwise,
the suit was filed by the respondent for possession of the
property and the production of the crop statements would
have been inconsequential inasmuch as the possession of the
petitioner over the suit property was admitted. The order is
just and proper and calls for no interference.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No. 6130 of 2012
Dhondu s/o Deoba Khule
Vs.
Shriram Narayan Gadhwe
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.
DATE : 4 th February, 2013 .
By this petition, the petitioner impugns an order
passed by the trial court on 28.9.2012, rejecting an
application filed by the petitioner for permission to file
documents on record.
The petitioner is the original defendant. A suit
was instituted by the respondent against the petitioner for
possession. The respondent tendered his evidence and closed
the evidence on his side. At that stage, the petitioner filed an
application for permission to file documents on record. By
the said application, the petitioner wanted to produce certain
crop statements on record. The application was opposed. The
trial court, by the impugned order dated 28.9.2012 rejected
the application.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and on a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the
trial court was justified in rejecting the application. Though
the documents sought to be produced were certified copies
of 7/12 extracts, the trial court found that the copies of the
documents were not filed at an appropriate stage. The court
was of the view that the petitioner had not stated any reason
much less any cogent reason for filing the application at a
belated stage, specially when the case was fixed for evidence
of the petitioner. Merely because the trial court had referred
to the provisions of Order 13 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure and had not referred to the provisions of Order 8
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot be said that
the impugned order is not just and proper. Even otherwise,
the suit was filed by the respondent for possession of the
property and the production of the crop statements would
have been inconsequential inasmuch as the possession of the
petitioner over the suit property was admitted. The order is
just and proper and calls for no interference.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with
no order as to costs.
Print Page
the documents sought to be produced were certified copies
of 7/12 extracts, the trial court found that the copies of the
documents were not filed at an appropriate stage. The court
was of the view that the petitioner had not stated any reason
much less any cogent reason for filing the application at a
belated stage, specially when the case was fixed for evidence
of the petitioner. Merely because the trial court had referred
to the provisions of Order 13 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure and had not referred to the provisions of Order 8
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot be said that
the impugned order is not just and proper. Even otherwise,
the suit was filed by the respondent for possession of the
property and the production of the crop statements would
have been inconsequential inasmuch as the possession of the
petitioner over the suit property was admitted. The order is
just and proper and calls for no interference.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No. 6130 of 2012
Dhondu s/o Deoba Khule
Vs.
Shriram Narayan Gadhwe
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.
DATE : 4 th February, 2013 .
By this petition, the petitioner impugns an order
passed by the trial court on 28.9.2012, rejecting an
application filed by the petitioner for permission to file
documents on record.
The petitioner is the original defendant. A suit
was instituted by the respondent against the petitioner for
possession. The respondent tendered his evidence and closed
the evidence on his side. At that stage, the petitioner filed an
application for permission to file documents on record. By
the said application, the petitioner wanted to produce certain
crop statements on record. The application was opposed. The
trial court, by the impugned order dated 28.9.2012 rejected
the application.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and on a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the
trial court was justified in rejecting the application. Though
the documents sought to be produced were certified copies
of 7/12 extracts, the trial court found that the copies of the
documents were not filed at an appropriate stage. The court
was of the view that the petitioner had not stated any reason
much less any cogent reason for filing the application at a
belated stage, specially when the case was fixed for evidence
of the petitioner. Merely because the trial court had referred
to the provisions of Order 13 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure and had not referred to the provisions of Order 8
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot be said that
the impugned order is not just and proper. Even otherwise,
the suit was filed by the respondent for possession of the
property and the production of the crop statements would
have been inconsequential inasmuch as the possession of the
petitioner over the suit property was admitted. The order is
just and proper and calls for no interference.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with
no order as to costs.
No comments:
Post a Comment