Arjun Karsan Patel vs Shonit Shikharchand Kala
2016 Latest Caselaw 1105 Bom

                                         1                       WP-10505.14


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                         
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 10505 OF 2014




                                                 
     Arjun s/o Karsan Patel
     Age: 58 years, Occu. Business,
     R/o. B-3, Dwarkasadan,




                                                
     Kailash Nagar, Aurangabad                          ... Petitioner
                                                    (Orig.Defendant)
              Versus

     Shonit s/o Shikharchand Kala




                                       
     Age: 37 years, Occu. Business,
     R/o. B-5, Dwarkasadan,  
     Kailash Nagar, Aurangabad                            ... Respondent
                                                         (Orig. Plaintiff)
                            
                                   .....
     Mr. A. D. Kasliwal, Advocate for petitioner
                                   .....
      


                                   CORAM :   SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 1st APRIL, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Despite being served twice, no appearance has been

caused on behalf of the respondent.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned

counsel for the petitioner finally.

2 WP-10505.14

3. The petition has been moved, purportedly aggrieved by

order dated 12th August, 2014 on Exhibit-110 whereby

request of petitioner - defendant to exhibit original documents

under the lists Exhibit-49 and Exhibit-72, which have been

referred to in the deposition of the defendant and have been

duly proved as required under the Indian Evidence Act, has

been rejected by 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division,

Aurangabad.

4. According to learned counsel, the documents, in fact,

have been duly proved according to the provisions of the

Indian Evidence Act. He points out that the observations as

are appearing in the impugned order may not be compatible

with the factual situation. As a matter of fact the position

makes it clear that the documents have been tendered along

with the affidavit in evidence.

5. In spite of service twice, respondent has not put in his

appearance. Learned counsel submits that on first occasion,

despite notice, no appearance was caused on behalf of the

respondent and therefore, this court on second occasion, had

issued notice referring to that the same is for final disposal.

3 WP-10505.14

6. In view of aforesaid, the contentions of the petitioner

have gone uncontroverted. It appears to be depiction of that

that there is tacit acceptance of the contentions in the writ

petition by the respondent.

7. As such, writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer

clause (B). Rule is made absolute.

( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. )

sms