Advocates:
['NATU SHARAD V', 'R', '', '', '', 'SERVED', '', 'R', '', '', 'SERED', 'PALODKAR DEVDATT P AND D B LONKAR', 'KATNESHWARKAR P R', 'R/ DELETED', 'WP DISMISSED AS AGAINST R']

WP 10288/14

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.10288/2014

Gahinath Maharaj Banda Maharaj & others.

...Petitioners..

Versus

Niwrathinath @ Papa Maharaj Banda Maharaj

Degloorkar (died) and others.

...Respondents...

.....

Shri Sharad V. Natu, Advocate for petitioners.

Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for respondent no.1.

Shri D.B. Lonkar, Advocate for respondent no.2.

Respondent nos.3 to 7, 9, 10 and 12 to 16 served.

WP dismissed against respondent no.8 as per order dated

22.12.2016.

Respondent no.11 deleted as per order dated 15.2.2016.

.....

CORAM: M.S. SANKLECHA, J.

DATE: 20.04.2017

ORDER :

1]

This petition challenges an order dated 10.9.2014

passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Biloli. By the

impugned order, the application of respondent no.2

(defendant no.1 before the trial Court) to exhibit

certified copies of saledeeds as secondary evidence was

allowed and also directed that the same may be read in

WP 10288/14

- 2 -

evidence.

2]

The petitioners and the respondent nos.1 & 2 are

represented by the Advocates. The other respondents,

though served, are unrepresented. The parties appearing

before me have arrived at a consensus that certified

copies of saledeeds (Sr.Nos.1 to 3, 14 to 18 and 38 of

list III of documents produced by the defendant no.1),

which have been allowed to be exhibited and read in

evidence by the impugned order, be modified only to the

extent that the issue of reading the certified copies of

saledeeds in evidence would be decided by the trial Court

at an appropriate stage of the proceedings without being

fettered by the impugned order dated 10.9.2014 directing

that the certified copies of the saledeeds, be read in

evidence.

3]

Hence, the impugned order dated 10.9.2014 is

modified only to the extent that the issue of reading the

certified copies of saledeeds (Sr.Nos.1 to 3, 14 to 18

and 38 of list III of documents produced by the defendant

no.1) in evidence would be decided by the trial Court at

an appropriate stage of the proceedings on its own merits

without holding itself bound by the view taken in the

WP 10288/14

- 3 -

impugned order dated 10.9.2014.

4]

It is made clear that there was no occasion for this

Court to examine the impugned order of the trial Court in

view of consensus arrived at by the parties. Further,

all contentions of the parties on the above issue are

left open for being canvassed and considered by the trial

Court at an appropriate stage of the proceedings.

5]

Petition is disposed of in above terms.

(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

ndk/c204171.doc