Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 1018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Anuja Prabhudessai, J.
Gurudas Padmnabh Shanbhag - Appellant
Versus
Sou. Gangubai Yellappa Dongare & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 12140 of 2018 and Writ Petition No. 7293 of 2019
Decided On : 08-04-2021
Mr. Akshay Kulkarni, for the Appellant / Mr. Sagar Ghogare I/B. Govind Salunke, for the Respondent.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the power to deal with dilatory tactics and delay in trial proceedings, and may exercise its powers to close the evidence of a party engaging in such conduct.
Headnote:
Relevancy of Documents - Property Dispute - 2013 (6) Mh.L.J. 802 - The court held that the documents sought by the Plaintiff were not relevant to decide the issues involved in the suit. The trial court was justified in rejecting the application for production of the documents and for adducing secondary evidence. The Plaintiff's conduct of delaying the trial and adopting dilatory tactics led to the trial court exercising its powers to close the evidence of the Plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff claimed ownership of certain properties and filed a suit against the Defendants for interference with his possession. The Plaintiff sought to produce documents and adduce secondary evidence, which were repeatedly rejected by the trial court. The trial court closed the evidence of the Plaintiff due to dilatory tactics.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Plaintiff's conduct demonstrated a lack of intention to proceed with the suit and was aimed at delaying the trial. The trial court's decision to close the evidence of the Plaintiff was intended to curb the Plaintiff's dilatory tactics and delay in disposing of the suit.
Issues: The main issue was the relevancy of the documents sought by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's conduct in delaying the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of relevancy of the documents sought by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's conduct of delaying the trial, which led to the trial court exercising its powers to close the evidence of the Plaintiff.
Final Decision: The Petitions were dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the matter and dispose of it expeditiously without granting any adjournment.
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner herein has challenged the Orders dated 30.06.2017, 04.01.2018 and 01.02.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Miraj, in Regular Civil Suit No.227 of 2006.
2. By impugned order dated 30.06.2017, the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner-Plaintiff to direct Respondent No.4 to produce documents viz. Development Agreement dated 18.01.2004, executed between Vijaysingh Patwardhan and Shrinivas Jaynarayan Bajaj, and the Power of Attorney dated 27.08.2009 by Vijaysingh Patwardhan in favour of Bajaj. By order dated 04.01.2018, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the application filed by the Plaintiff to adduce secondary evidence, in respect of the aforesaid documents. By impugned order dated 01.02.2019 the trial Judge has dismissed the another application filed by the Petitioner-Plaintiff for adducing secondary evidence in respect of the same documents.
3. The Petitioner and the Respondents shall be hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff and Defendants.
4. Brief facts necessary to decide this Petition are as under; The Plaintiff claims to be the owner of four properties surveyed under Survey Nos. 6, 7, 181 and 182 of Village Miraj. The said property shall be hereinafter referred to as the suit property. According to the Plaintiff the suit properties which were initially owned by Madhavrao Patwardhan, have been bequeathed to him by Will dated 7.3.2002. Initially Plaintiff filed a suit for injunction simplicitor alleging that the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are interfering with his possession on the basis of false and wrong survey entries. The Plaintiff subsequently amended the plaint and impleaded Defendant No.4 as a party to the suit and challenged the Development Agreement dated 18.08.2006 executed by the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of the Defendant No.4.
5. The Defendants put in their appearance and filed their written statements wherein they denied the title and possession of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit property. The Defendant Nos.1 to 3 claim to be in possession of the suit property. The Defendant No.4 has averred that the Plaintiff had filed a suit (RCS No.40 of 2004) against Vijaysingh Patwardhan, son of late Madhavrao Patwardhan on the basis of the Will dated 7.3.2002. The said suit was allowed to be withdrawn in view of the pursis filed by the Plaintiff wherein he had stated that he had claimed right to the property on the basis of the Will dated 7.3.2002, and after going through the documents he was convinced that said Vijaysingh has absolute ownership and possession of the properties. The Plaintiff had stated that he was convinced of the futility of the claim based on the registered Will dated 7.3.2002 of Shrimant Madhavrao C. Patwardhan. The Defendant No.4 claimed that the Plaintiff has no title, right or interest in the suit property. The Defendant No.4 also raised the issue of limitation in challenging the Development Agreement dated 18.08.2016.
6. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, issues were framed and the evidence had commenced. The evidence of the Plaintiff had commenced on 07.07.2010 with filing of affidavit of evidence, and was concluded on 04.03.2013. The evidence of witnesses was recorded on 11.09.2013. The records reveal that after examining the second witness, the plaintiff filed an application alleging that Vijaysingh Patwardhan has filed a suit before Sangli Court claiming right to the property of his father Madhavrao Patwardhan. The Plaintiff therefore sought to implead Vijay Patwardhan and Shrinivas Bajaj as Defendant nos.5 and 6. The learned trial Judge held that Vijay Patwardhan and Shrinivas Bajaj were not necessary parties. While dismissing the said application observed that the Plaintiff has been filing such applications only with an object of delaying the matter.
7. The Plaintiff thereafter filled application dated 30.06.2017 (Exhibit 148) for production of the documents i.e. Development Agreement and Power of Attorn
