Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1756 (BOM)

Ramrao Venkatrao Rane v. Sanjay Rane

2012-09-13

F.M.REIS

body2012
JUDGMENT: Heard Shri Prasheen Lotlikar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri G. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 3. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned District Judge-1 dated 25/01/2012 whereby an application filed by the petitioner to produce two documents viz. one survey plan and the other Deed of Gift and Adoption dated 24/01/1908 came to be dismissed. 4. Shri P. Lotlikar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that whilst remanding the matter before the learned District Judge this Court by judgment dated 10/12/2010 passed in First Appeal No.184/2004 had given liberty to the parties to adduce further evidence in accordance with law. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that the petitioner came across the said Deed of Gift only thereafter and according to him such documents are relevant for the purpose of deciding the matter in controversy. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the survey plan has been produced for some elucidation of matter in controversy. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned order and pointed out that the learned Judge has exceeded its jurisdiction whilst passing the impugned order. 5. Shri G. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned order. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the said documents have no relevancy for the purpose of deciding the dispute between the parties. The learned Counsel further points out that there were inventory proceedings in the Court thereafter, and, as such, the said documents have no relevancy for deciding the dispute. The learned Counsel further points out that by allowing such application the disposal of the reference will unnecessarily be prolonged. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that the petition be rejected. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. I have also gone through the records. On perusal of the judgment passed by this Court dated 10/12/2010 there was specific liberty given to the parties to adduce further evidence in accordance with law. Hence, the finding of the learned Judge in the impugned order that there is no scope for allowing any further production of documents cannot be accepted. I have also gone through the records. On perusal of the judgment passed by this Court dated 10/12/2010 there was specific liberty given to the parties to adduce further evidence in accordance with law. Hence, the finding of the learned Judge in the impugned order that there is no scope for allowing any further production of documents cannot be accepted. Considering that the documents which are sought to be produced are otherwise referable to the dispute raised between the parties, I find that the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned order to refuse leave to the petitioner to rely upon the said documents. The contention of Shri Agni that the said documents are not relevant and in any event such documents will not create right in favour of the petitioner is a matter which will have to be considered by the learned Judge while appreciating the entire evidence on record at the final stage. As such, all contentions of Shri Agni with that regard are left open. 7. Subject to the above, the impugned order dated 25/01/2012 cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. In view of the above, I pass the following order: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 25/01/2012 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The petitioner is given leave to rely upon the said two documents namely the Deed of Gift and Adoption dated 24/01/1908 and the Survey Plan. (iii) All contentions with regard to the relevancy including admissibility of the said documents are left open. (iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (v) The petition stands disposed of accordingly.