← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/7783/2018disposed off

Shrikrishna Varadaraj Acharya v. Shri. Gurunath Kashinath Vaidya And ORS.

2022-04-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice G. A. Sanap2 pages

27-wp-7783-2018.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7783 OF 2018 Shrikrishna Varadaraj Acharya

...Petitioner

V/s.

Shri. Gurunath Kashinath Vaidya & Ors.

...Respondents

---- Mr. Chandrakant N. Chavan, for the Petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Sawant i/b. Mr. Samir M. Suryawanshi, for the Respondent No.1.

---- CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.

Digitally signed by MAMTA AMAR KALE Date:

2022.04.26 17:01:06 +0530 MAMTA AMAR KALE DATE : 22 April 2022 P.C.

.

Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Advocate for the respondent No.1.

2.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos.2 to 6 are not the contesting parties. The order impugned in this petition is dated 17 January 2017. The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court has partly allowed the revision application filed by the petitioner. The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court was not inclined to exhibit the documents at serial Nos.2, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. The Appellate Mamta Kale page 1 of 2

27-wp-7783-2018.doc Court has recorded the reasons.

3.

I have gone through the order passed by the learned Judge of the trial Court and the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. It seems from the perusal of the order that the prayer made by the petitioner to exhibit the documents was not allowed in as much as the evidence led by the petitioner was not sufficient to prove the contents of the documents. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order. Perusal of the order would show that by this order the petitioner has been put to notice that the documents are not proved according to law and he is required to lead evidence. It seems on perusal of the order that the right of the petitioner to lead the evidence to prove the contents of the documents has not been foreclosed. The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court has taken care of the right of the petitioner.

The petitioner ought to have accepted this order in right spirit. In view of the facts and circumstances, I do not see any substance in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. It is made clear that the right of the petitioner to lead the evidence to prove the contents of the documents has not been foreclosed. The petitioner is at liberty to lead the evidence and prove the documents to the satisfaction of the Court.

(G. A. SANAP, J.) Mamta Kale page 2 of 2