Sharad Genubhau Dangat And ANR. v. Smt. Sakhubai Vishwanath Borate And ORS.

Amberkar IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 148 OF 2024 Sharad Genubhau Dangat & Anr.

.. Applicants

Versus

Sakhubai Vishwanath Borate & Ors.

.. Respondents ....................

 Mr. Aditya R. Deshmukh for Applicants  Mr. Abhinandan B. Vagyani i/by Mr. Pankaj Kandhari for Respondent Nos. 1, 6 & 7 ...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : MARCH 11, 2024 P. C.

:

1.

Heard Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for Applicants and Mr. Vagyani, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1, 6 & 7. 2.

Perused the impugned order dated 07.10.2023 passed by learned Trial Court in Application below Exh. 43 in Special Civil Suit (SCS) No. 1436/2021. Said Application was filed by Applicants (Org. Defendant Nos. 9 and 10) under O. VII, Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the premise that the predecessor-in-title of Plaintiff by a registered sale deed conveyed the suit property described in paragraph No. 1 of the Suit plaint i.e. Survey No. 10, Hissa No. 2A, total area admeasuring 00 H, 50 R along with right of way to the said property situated at Shivane, Taluka Haveli, District Pune.

3.

After I heard Mr. Deshmukh on his submissions and challenge to the impugned order and after perusing the suit plaint and the reliefs prayed for which are at page No. 37 of the Civil Revision Application (CRA), it is seen that the sale deed at Exh. D is an incomplete sale deed. Reading of the said sale deed also does not reveal as to whether the suit property is the subject matter of the sale deed. All that Mr. Deshmukh would submit is that by virtue of the sale deed, a mutation entry rather a fiscal entry which is at page No. 47 of the CRA has been carried out as far back in the year 1967 in the name of Defendant No. 10 - Suresh Genu Dangat. Merely on the basis of the said fiscal entry and without proving the document at Exh. D which is an incomplete document, prima facie case cannot be made out.

Only after this Court pointed out that the document at Exh. D is an incomplete document to Mr. Deshmukh, he would submit that he will take appropriate instructions. This Court expects the Advocates to come to Court with clean hands and before arguing matters, if any incomplete document is annexed to the pleadings, it is the duty of the Advocate to call for the document from the client and produce the complete document. Only some illegible pages of the sale deed are annexed to the Application.

4.

In the present case, Mr. Deshmukh has argued the matter on merits and only when this Court pointed out the aforesaid incomplete

document at Exh. D, he would submit that he would take instructions. Rather he should have informed about the incomplete document at the outset.

5.

Be that as it may, one opportunity is given to the Applicants to place on record a complete copy of the sale deed along with all other necessary supporting documents to establish that the predecessor-intitle of the Plaintiff had indeed sold and conveyed the suit property / land to Defendant No. 10. By supporting documents, this Court expects the Applicants to place on record all revenue entries as also all assessment record in respect of the suit property and any other documentary evidence that will enure to the benefit of the Applicants. Applicants are directed to place the aforesaid documents on affidavit within a period of three weeks from today.

6.

Stand over to 26th March, 2024.

Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2024.03.11 14:46:50 +0530 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR