1

wp no.1059 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO.1059 OF 2019

The Mazania of the Temple

of Shree Mahalaxmi and its affiliates

Through its Attorney

Shri Mahesh Khandolkar

Office at Shree Mahalaxmi Temple,

Panaji-Goa.

…. Petitioner

V/s.

1. Shri Arvind Gajanan Shenvi Ghatkar,

Son of late Gajanan Shenvi Ghatkar,

Major of age, and his wife.

2. Mrs. Smita Arvind Ghatkar,

Wife of Shri Arvind Gajanan

Shenvi Ghatekar, Major of age,

Both r/o. Kamat Retreat,

Durgawadi, Taleigao-Goa.

…. Respondents

Shri Shriram S. Polle, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri Ajit R. Kantak, Advocate for the Respondents.

Coram:- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

Date:- 9^th December 2019

ORAL JUDGMENT:

Facts:

The petitioner is the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.78/2015/D,

before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji. It has filed the suit against

the respondents-defendants for a declaration of title and for perpetual

injunction. It was in 2015.

2

wp no.1059 of 2019

2. After examining four witnesses, in August 2019, the plaintiff

applied to bring on record certain documents. It is said to have been

allowed. Later, the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants under Order

XII Rule 3 of CPC; it wanted them to admit the documents it has just

brought on record. But through their reply, the respondents disowned

those documents. In that backdrop, the plaintiff applied to the trial Court

for a suitable direction to the respondents to admit those documents. In

the face of the respondents' denial, the trial Court refused to interfere.

Impugning the trial Courts' order, dated 20.11.2019, the plaintiff has filed

this Writ Petition.

3. The petitioner’s counsel Shri S. Polle has argued that the

respondents have not expressly denied their executing the documents.

According to him, they are public documents, having been registered.

Their veracity cannot be doubted or disputed. To support his contention,

he has relied on Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal¹ and on

M/s. Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Ltd. v. Smt. Sita Shripad Narvekar,² an

unreported judgment of this Court.

4. On the other hand, the respondents’ counsel Shri Ajit Kantak has

submitted that Order XII serves the purpose of shortening the litigation

based on the opposite party’s admissions. But once the party to the

1 (2003) 8 SCC 745

2 (2016) 2 Mah LJ 958

3

wp no.1059 of 2019

proceedings denies or disowns the documents, in an adversarial

adjudication that party cannot be compelled to admit documents. It is for

the other party to prove those documents in accordance with the law. He

has also drawn my attention to paragraph 5 of the reply the respondents

have filed before this Court.

5. Heard.

Discussion:

6. Indeed, as rightly contended by the respondents' counsel, the

salutary purpose of Order XII is to shorten the litigation. And this

shortening of the litigation happens on the admissions of either party.

7. Let us examine the statutory position in this regard. Admissions

are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but they may, as Section

31 of the Evidence Act mandates, operate as estoppels under that Act.

Section 58 of the same Act elaborates on Section 31. Under Section 58 of

the Evidence Act, facts admitted need not be proved. But as per the

proviso to that section, the court may, in its discretion, require the facts

admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.

8. Section 30 of CPC deals with the court’s “power to order

discovery and the like.” Subject to statutory limitations, the court may, at

any time, require one party to deliver and another party to answer

interrogatories. Similarly, it may pass orders affecting the admission of

4

wp no.1059 of 2019

documents and facts, and the discovery, inspection, production,

impounding and return of documents or other material objects producible

as evidence. Order 8, Rules 3 to 5 dea