Bombay High CourtWP/988/2017disposed offdismissed for default

Pukhraj Mishrilal Surana v. Shaikh Mansur Shaikh Faiyyaz

2017-01-23Hon'Ble Shri Justice S. B. Shukre1 pages

{1} wp98817.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.988 OF 2017 Pukhraj Mishrilal Surana Petitioner

Versus

Shaikh Mansur Shaikh Faiyyaz Respondent Mr.Girish S. Rane, advocate for the petitioner CORAM : S.B.SHUKRE, J.

DATE : 23rd January, 2017 PER COURT:

Heard.

The order dated 22.11.2016, impugned herein, observes that the suit has been instituted by the Respondent for specific performance of the contract and, therefore, it is for him to prove his case. If it is the contention of the respondent/original plaintiff that he is not in possession of the relevant document, obviously, it is for him to prove the contention that he is not in possession of the document. If the respondent fails to prove his contention, the learned trial Court can always draw necessary inference in law. I feel that no prejudice is being caused to the petitioner/original defendant by the impugned order. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs. S.B.SHUKRE JUDGE adb/wp98817