Bakulesh Dirajlal Sanghavi vs Hiralaxmi Dhirajlal Sanghavi & ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 233 Bom

                                                   1                              (1) S.2419/2011(4)

    mnm
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION




                                                                                              
                                  SUIT NO. 2419  OF 2011




                                                                      
    Bakulesh Dirajlal Sanghavi                                          ...Plaintiff
          Vs.
    Hiralaxmi Dhirajlal Sanghavi & Ors.                                 ...Defendants




                                                                     
    Mr. Darshit Jain a/w. Mr. Nilesh U. 
    i/b. Thakore Jariwala & Assoc. for Plaintiff 
    Mr. Robin Jaisinghani a/w. Jacinta D'Silva for 




                                                       
    Defendant Nos. 2 & 4. 
                                      igCORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.

DATED : 28TH NOVEMBER, 2013 P.C. :

1. Further affidavit of evidence of the plaintiff is filed. Further compilation of the documents are also filed. The admissibility of the further documents of the plaintiff are considered as follows:

1. The handwritten account of the amount of Rs.3.41 lakhs is stated to be given to the wife of the plaintiff. The wife is not

examined. Hence the handwritten account remains marked "X" for identification.

2. For reasons dictated separately the email dated 12 th March

2009 is marked Exhibit-L. However, the attachment of the email is stated not to have been offered for inspection. The plaintiff shall offer the same to the defendant today itself. The admissibility of the print of the attachment shall be considered on the next date of

2 (1) S.2419/2011(4)

hearing i.e, 2nd December, 2013. However the attachment is not marked. The copy of the declaration-cum-indemnity dated 15 th

October, 2009 sought to be produced by the plaintiff is stated to have been misplaced in the Court records. The plaintiff shall be

entitled to file a further affidavit to prove the copy of the copy of the document by secondary evidence. At present, therefore, a copy

of the declaration-cum-indemnity dated 15th October, 2009 is not marked.

2. The admissibility of the print of the attachment and any other

documents, if any, shall be considered on the next date of hearing i.e, 2nd December, 2013.

(ROSHAN DALVI, J.)