Sunday, 03, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shri Abu Bakar Ahmed Mitta And ... vs Pradeep S/O Hemraj Dhanule And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4492 Bom

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 4492 Bom
Judgement Date : 5 August, 2016

Bombay High Court
Shri Abu Bakar Ahmed Mitta And ... vs Pradeep S/O Hemraj Dhanule And ... on 5 August, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
                                                                                      1                                                                wp4155.16

                                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                     NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                              WRIT PETITION NO.4155/2016




                                                                                                                                  
    1.          Shri Abu Bakar Ahmed Mitta, 
                aged about 75 Yrs., Occu. Business.




                                                                                                                                 
    2.          Shri Afzal s/o Abu Bakar Mitta,
                aged about 45 Yrs., Occu. Business.




                                                                                                       
                Both R/o Buty Road, Sitabuldi,
                Nagpur.                                              ig                                                                                              ..Petitioners.

                      ..VS..
                                                                   
    1.                Pradeep s/o Hemraj Dhanule,
                      aged about 37 Yrs., Occu. Agriculturist. 

    2.                Mahesh S/o Hemraj Dhanule,
                      aged about 37 Yrs., Occu. Agriculturist. 
                  


    3.                Smt. Gayatri Lavkesh Sewake,
               



                      aged about 28 Yrs., Occu. Household. 

    4.                Smt. Geetabai Wd/o Hemraj Dhanule,
                      aged about 56 Yrs., Occu. Agriculturist. 





                      All R/o Mouja Panjri, Tah. Hingna, 
                      Distt. Nagpur.                                                                                                                     .. Respondents.
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
                Shri A.J. Mirza, Advocate for the petitioners.
                Shri S.G. Karmarkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 





                                                                     CORAM :  Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : 5.8.2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT

C.A.W. 1692/2016.

For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed. The amendment

2 wp4155.16

be carried out forthwith.

1. Heard Shri A.J. Mirza, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri S.G.

Karmarkar, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The defendants have challenged the order passed by the trial Court on

application (Exh. No.138) rejecting the prayer for setting aside the order dated 29 th

March, 2016 by which the trial Court had directed closure of evidence of defendants'

side.

According to the petitioners - defendants, the bank statements showing

the transactions between the parties are required to be filed to substantiate the

defence of the defendants. According to the defendants, the bank statements could

not be filed on record earlier as they were not supplied by the bank. The defendants

have stated that now the bank statements are available and will be produced on

record immediately, if permitted.

4. The petition is opposed by the respondents on the ground that the

production of the documents is not permissible at this stage. It is further submitted

that there are no bonafides on the part of the defendants and the matter is being

unnecessarily prolonged.

5. Considering the facts on record and the submissions made on behalf of

3 wp4155.16

the respective parties, in my view, the defendants can be permitted to produce the

bank statements. Though the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs has argued that the

defendants cannot be permitted to produce the documents (bank statements) at this

stage, this submission was not made before the trial Court and the impugned order

does not show that the application (Exh. No.138) of the defendants is rejected on the

ground that the defendants cannot be permitted to produce the documents.

In view of the above, the following order is passed to sub-serve the ends

of justice:

(i)

The impugned order is set aside.

(ii) The application (Exh. No.138) filed by the defendants is allowed.

(iii) The trial Court shall permit the defendants to produce the bank

statements on record, if produced within one month.

(iv) If the bank statements are not produced on record within one month, the

trial Court shall not permit the defendants to produce the bank statements on record

and shall proceed with the matter.

(v) If the bank statements are produced on record within one month, the trial

Court shall proceed further taking into consideration the production of documents on

record.

(vi) The petition is allowed in the above terms.

In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

Tambaskar.

                                             4                                                                wp4155.16




                                                                                                      
                                                                          
                                                                         
                                            CERTIFICATE

" I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of

original signed Judgment/Order".

Uploaded By : N.V. Tambaskar.

                                       ig                                    Uploaded On : 6.8.2016.  
                   Personal Assistant.
                                     
           
        







 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter