Bombay High Court
Sunita Dnyanoba Yachawad And ... vs Sagarbai Dnayanoba Yachawad And ... on 17 March, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 WP-10882.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10882 OF 2015
1. Sunita Dnayanoba Yachawad,
Age: 46 years, Occ. Agri. & H.H.
R/o Degaon, Tq. Mukhed,
At present Dhamangaon,
Ta. Jalkot, District Latur.
2. Prashant Dnayanoba Yachawad,
Age: 18 years, Occ. Education,
R/o Degaon, Tq. Mukhed,
At present Dhamangaon,
Ta. Jalkot, District Latur. ...PETITIONERS
(Ori. Defts. No.2 & 3)
versus
1. Sagarbai Dnayanoba Yachawad,
Age: 40 years, Occ. Household
R/o Degaon, Tq. Mukhed,
District Nanded.
2. Pravin Dnayanoba Yachawad,
Age: 10 years, since minor,
Through respondent No. 1.
3. Mayuri Dnayanoba Yachawad,
Age: 8 years, since minor,
Through respondent No. 1.
4. Pratiksha Gajanan Kasle,
Age: 22 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Naigaon, Tq. Chakur,
District Latur.
5. Dnayanoba Pandharinath Yachawad,
Age: 50 years, Occ. Household
R/o Degaon, Tq. Mukhed,
District Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS
(Respdts. No.1 to 4
are original plaintiffs)
.....
Mr. Anand V. Patil (Indrale), Advocate for petitioners
Mr. P.P. Uttarwar, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4
.....
::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:22:48 :::
2 WP-10882.15
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 17th MARCH, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with consent of learned
advocates for appearing parties heard, finally.
2. Present petition has been moved by petitioners - original
defendants No. 2 and 3 aggrieved by the impugned order dated
28-09-2015 on Exhibit-72 in regular civil suit No. 50 of 2011 passed by
civil judge, junior division, Mukhed whereunder their request, to place
on record certified copies of documents and for exhibition of the same,
photo copies of which are appearing on record which were referred to
in written statement, has been turned down.
3. The primary reason, which had weighed with trial court is that
arguments in the matter were heard and the matter had been posted
for filing citations and despite ample opportunities being available such
efforts had not been made. There does not appear any other
impediment save and except aforesaid reason for production of
certified copies as referred to under Exhibit-72.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners refers to order dated 30-07-2015
on applications Exhibits-63 and 65. Those applications were filed on
either side for production of documents and exhibition of the same,
which had been allowed.
3 WP-10882.15
5. Learned counsel for respondents, however, purports to submit
to view the matter from different angle. According to him, the
application has been moved for procrastination of the litigation. There
is no reason given in the application for such belated approach.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, purports to explain
the situation stating that petitioner No. 1 is housewife and petitioner
No. 2 is prosecuting studies and the matter is in respect of immovable
property. Petitioner No.1 could not appreciate the importance of
certified copies, since she had been rustic. He further submits that
certified copies of the documents, of which photo copies are appearing
on record, referred to in written statement are sought to be placed on
record and, therefore, he urges for lenient view in the matter and allow
the writ petition.
7. Aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners
cannot be said to have gone in well with learned counsel for
respondents. He submits that these are the submissions advanced to
suit the convenience of the petitioners and delay has been caused in
the process. He, therefore, requests not to give indulgence to the
petitioners.
8. Taking into account aforesaid situation and having regard to the
reasons which have weighed with civil judge junior division, Mukhed,
and the time span between the orders on Exhibits-63 and 65 in order
to have fair and proper adjudication, belated approach will have to be
viewed liberally in the matter having regard to that parties come from
4 WP-10882.15
muffosil area. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate in the
interest of justice to allow application Exhibit-72 in order to avoid
procrastination of litigation at subsequent stage on that count.
9. In view of aforesaid, writ petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 28-09-2015 on Exhibit-72 in regular civil suit No. 50 of
2011 passed by civil judge, junior division, Mukhed stands set aside
subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be payable to the
respondents - original plaintiffs. Application Exhibit-72 stands allowed.
The amount of costs of Rs. 5,000/- be deposited in the trial court
within a period of four weeks from today. Upon deposit of the same,
respondents - original plaintiffs would be entitled to withdraw the
same.
10. However, at this stage parties to the suit fairly agree upon that
the suit deserves expeditious disposal. In view of the same, civil
judge, junior division, Mukhed, shall dispose of regular civil suit no. 50
of 2011 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. It is expected
that parties would co-operate for expeditious disposal of the suit.
11. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made
absolute in aforesaid terms.
Sd/-
( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. )
MTK
