I have also perused the material on record. It is
settled position in law that once the documents are marked
as Exhibits, they cannot be deexhibited. At the same time,
while deciding the suit finally, the learned trial Judge will
decide the same uninfluenced by the observations made in
the order dated 27.3.2012 in relation to Exhibits21 to 23
and 25 to 27. Subject to this clarification, no case is made
out for invocation of powers under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Petition fails and the same is
dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Writ Petition NO. 8569 OF 2016
Sultan Suleman Qureshi V Mrs. Anisa Rafiq Charolia
And Ors .
CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J.
DATE : 18th August, 2016
1. Heard Mr. Manoj Harit, learned Counsel for the
petitioner, at length.
2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner hereinafter referred to
as the 'defendant', has challenged the judgment and order
dated 22.4.2016 passed by the learned Judge, presiding
over Court Room No.10 of the Court of Small Causes at
Bombay below Exhibit36 in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.103/163 of
2004. By that order, the learned trial Judge rejected the
application Exhibit36 made by the defendant for deexhibiting
the documents at Exhibits24 to 28 and reject
same from the evidence.
3. Mr. Harit has invited my attention to the order
dated 27.3.2012 passed by the learned trial Judge regarding
admissibility of the documents filed by the plaintiff. In
particular he submitted that while marking the documents
as Exhibits21 to 23, the learned trial Judge has observed
that the contents in the letters dated 16.7.1998 and
26.4.1998 are proved in evidence of PW1 Mr. Rashid and
accordingly marked those documents at Sr. Nos.1 to 3 as
Exhibits21 to 23.
4. Mr. Harit further submitted that the learned trial
Judge has also marked the letters dated 5.12.1998,
7.12.1998 and 28.10.1999 as Exhibits25 to 27 by observing
that same are proved in evidence of PW1 Mr. Rashid. He
submitted that the learned trial Judge was not justified in
observing that these documents are proved in evidence of
PW1 Rashid. Said stage will come while deciding the suit
on merits.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced by Mr.
Harit. I have also perused the material on record. It is
settled position in law that once the documents are marked
as Exhibits, they cannot be deexhibited. At the same time,
while deciding the suit finally, the learned trial Judge will
decide the same uninfluenced by the observations made in
the order dated 27.3.2012 in relation to Exhibits21 to 23
and 25 to 27. Subject to this clarification, no case is made
out for invocation of powers under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Petition fails and the same is
dismissed.
6. It is made clear that where a decree is challenged
by the petitioner, any error, defect or irregularity in
impugned order, affecting the decision of the case, may be
set forth as a ground of objection in the memorandum of
the proposed proceedings as contended by section 105(1) of
C.P.C.
( R. G. KETKAR, J.)
Print Page
settled position in law that once the documents are marked
as Exhibits, they cannot be deexhibited. At the same time,
while deciding the suit finally, the learned trial Judge will
decide the same uninfluenced by the observations made in
the order dated 27.3.2012 in relation to Exhibits21 to 23
and 25 to 27. Subject to this clarification, no case is made
out for invocation of powers under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Petition fails and the same is
dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Writ Petition NO. 8569 OF 2016
Sultan Suleman Qureshi V Mrs. Anisa Rafiq Charolia
And Ors .
CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J.
DATE : 18th August, 2016
1. Heard Mr. Manoj Harit, learned Counsel for the
petitioner, at length.
2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner hereinafter referred to
as the 'defendant', has challenged the judgment and order
dated 22.4.2016 passed by the learned Judge, presiding
over Court Room No.10 of the Court of Small Causes at
Bombay below Exhibit36 in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.103/163 of
2004. By that order, the learned trial Judge rejected the
application Exhibit36 made by the defendant for deexhibiting
the documents at Exhibits24 to 28 and reject
same from the evidence.
3. Mr. Harit has invited my attention to the order
dated 27.3.2012 passed by the learned trial Judge regarding
admissibility of the documents filed by the plaintiff. In
particular he submitted that while marking the documents
as Exhibits21 to 23, the learned trial Judge has observed
that the contents in the letters dated 16.7.1998 and
26.4.1998 are proved in evidence of PW1 Mr. Rashid and
accordingly marked those documents at Sr. Nos.1 to 3 as
Exhibits21 to 23.
4. Mr. Harit further submitted that the learned trial
Judge has also marked the letters dated 5.12.1998,
7.12.1998 and 28.10.1999 as Exhibits25 to 27 by observing
that same are proved in evidence of PW1 Mr. Rashid. He
submitted that the learned trial Judge was not justified in
observing that these documents are proved in evidence of
PW1 Rashid. Said stage will come while deciding the suit
on merits.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced by Mr.
Harit. I have also perused the material on record. It is
settled position in law that once the documents are marked
as Exhibits, they cannot be deexhibited. At the same time,
while deciding the suit finally, the learned trial Judge will
decide the same uninfluenced by the observations made in
the order dated 27.3.2012 in relation to Exhibits21 to 23
and 25 to 27. Subject to this clarification, no case is made
out for invocation of powers under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Petition fails and the same is
dismissed.
6. It is made clear that where a decree is challenged
by the petitioner, any error, defect or irregularity in
impugned order, affecting the decision of the case, may be
set forth as a ground of objection in the memorandum of
the proposed proceedings as contended by section 105(1) of
C.P.C.
( R. G. KETKAR, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment