1

WP4975-12

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 4975/2012

(CHANDULAL LALURAM SHARMA VERSUS UMASHANKAR DEOCHAND PALIWAL & OTHERS)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

Court's or Judge's orders

appearances, Court's orders of directions

and Registrar's orders

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Shri A.R. Kalraiya, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri P.P. Kotwal, counsel for the R-1 & 2.

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.

DATE : NOVEMBER 29

, 2012

.

By this petition, the petitioner impugns an order

passed by the trial Court on 28.08.2012 rejecting an

application filed by the petitioner for de-exibiting the

documents filed by the respondent no.1.

It appears, on hearing the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the annexures to the petition, that

the application was moved by the petitioner only with a view

to protract the proceedings filed against the petitioner for

eviction and possession. It is informed to this Court by the

learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that the documents

pertained to the Mining Lease and there is a pleading in the

plaint filed by the respondent no.1 that the respondent nos.1

and 2 have a mining lease. The counsel for the petitioner

states that the documents do not stand in the name of the

respondent no.1, who appeared in the witness box and,

hence, the documents need to be de-exibited.

The submission made on behalf of the petitioner

is ill-founded. The trial Court has rightly observed in

2

WP4975-12

the order that merely because the documents are

exhibited, it cannot be held that that they are proved and the

question of admissibility of the documents could be gone into

at the time of hearing. The trial Court was in a position to

witness the conduct of the petitioner-defendant in the suit for

eviction and, therefore, observed that the application for de-

exhibiting the documents was filed by the petitioner only with

a view to protract the matter when the same was at the stage

of cross-examination of the plaintiff. The order appears to be

just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the

writ jurisdiction. The judgment reported in 2012(3) Mh.L.J.

249 (Rekha w/o Ramrao Bhujang Versus Subhadrabai w/o

Keshavrao Bunage & others) and relied on by the counsel for

the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of the

case.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no

order as to costs.

JUDGE

APTE