Pralhad Dnyanoba Renge vs Vithal Dnyanoba Renge And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 2013 Bom

                                                   1

                                        UNREPORTED




                                                                               
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT




                                                       
                                          BOMBAY

                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.




                                                      
                              WRIT PETITION NO.10739 OF 2012.



              Pralhad S/o Dnyanoba Renge,




                                        
              Age 50 years, Occ.Service and
              Agri.,R/o Ganesh Nagar,
                             
              Dargah Road, Parbhani.                            ... Petitioner.
                            
                               Versus

              1. Vithal S/o Dnyanoba Renge,
              Age 57 years, Occ.Agril.,
      


              2. Mohan S/o Vithalrao Renge,
              Age 29 years, Occ.Agril.,
   



              3. Satish S/o Vithalrao Renge,
              Age 27 years, Occ.Agril.,





              4. Dnyanoba S/o Vithalrao Renge,
              Age 25 years, Occ.Agril.,

              5. Salubai W/o Vithalrao Renge
              (Died)
              Resp. 1 to 5, R/o Jamb,





              Tq. and Dist.Parbhani.

              6. Pushpabai W/o Pralhad Renge,
              Age 42 years, Occ.Household,

              7. Vashishta S/o Pralhad Renge,
              Age 24 years, Occ.Education,

              8. Pravin S/o Pralhad Renge,
              Age 22 years, Occ.Education,




    ::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2016                       ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:10:11 :::
                                                       2

              9. Mahesh S/o Pralhad Renge,
              Age 20 years, Occ.Education,




                                                                                  
              Resp.No.6 to 9, R/o Ganesh
              Nagar, Dargah Road, Parbhani.                        ... Respondents.




                                                          
                                           ...

              Mr.S.K.Chavan, advocate for the petitioner.




                                                         
              Mr.Patil Milind M.(Beedkar), advocate for the
              Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

                                           ...




                                            
                                      CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

                              ig      Date      : 28.04.2016.
                            
              ORAL JUDGMENT


              1.               Heard.
      
   

2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With

the consent of the parties, the petition is taken

up for final hearing.

3. The Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are only

contesting Respondents. Mr.M.M.Patil (Beedkar),

learned counsel appears for them. The present

Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have filed suit for

partition and separate possession. The present

petitioner is the original defendant No.1. The

defendant No.1 during the pendency of the suit

filed an application for issuing witness summons

to the Sub-Registrar, Parbhani, to remain present

along with index Register, so as to prove the

sale deed bearing No.1483/96. According to the

learned counsel for the petitioner, initially the

application was allowed. The witness summons was

issued to the Sub-Registrar but he did not bring

any document with him. As such application

Exh.101 was given. The same is rejected on the

ground that the application is vague and the

details of documents are not given. The learned

counsel submits that vide earlier application

bearing Exh.96 details of documents to be proved

was already stated.

4. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the

plaintiffs submits that petitioner is trying to

protract the matter. The application Exh.101 was

vague and did not contain the details of the

document required to be proved by the Sub-

Registrar.

5. I have considered the submissions.

Perusal of application Exh.101, it is manifest

that the said application is bereft of any

details. It appears that subsequently one more

application Exh.104 was given. The same was also

vague. It refers to the sale deed bearing

No.1483/98 but the said application further

states that along with some other relevant

documents, no details of the other relevant

documents were given.

6.

Even vide application Exh.96, which is

allowed, the witness summons to the Sub-Registrar

was issued to remain present along with index

Register relating to the registered sale deed

bearing No.1483/96. The parties are required to

be given opportunity to prove the document. It

is stated that the document is on record and the

same is to be proved by calling Sub-Registrar and

the index Register.

7. In light of the above, I pass the

following order :

a) The impugned order is quashed and set

aside. The applications Exhs.101 and 104 are

allowed to the extent that witness summons be

issued to the Sub-Registrar, Parbhani to remain

present along with index regarding sale deed

bearing serial No.1483/96. To that extent the

applications are allowed.

b) Considering the fact that the suit is

of 2007 and the same was stayed for four years,

so also the fact that the evidence of plaintiff

is concluded and the evidence of defendant is in

progress, the trial Court shall endeavour to

dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably

within eight (8) months.

c) Rule made absolute in above terms. No

costs.

Sd/-

(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

asp/office/wp10739.12