Shastri Gruh Nirman Sanstha, ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Urban ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1596 Bom

                                         1                                          wp7054.16




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  

                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


 WRIT PETITION NO. 7054 OF 2016


 Shastri Gruh Nirman Sanstha Nagpur,
 through its Secretary, Shri Gulabrao 
 Bhagwanji Lakudkar, Office at NIT
 Complex, Gokulpeth, Nagpur.                                      ....       PETITIONER


                     VERSUS


 1) The State of Maharashtra,
     Urban Development Ministry, 
     through its Secretary, Mantralaya, 
     Mumbai.

 2) The Nagpur Improvement Trust,
     through its Chairman, Near Liberty
     Cinema House, Nagpur.                                        ....       RESPONDENTS


 ______________________________________________________________
              Shri R.R. Gour, Advocate for the petitioner, 
        Shri Bhagwan M. Lonare, A.G.P. for the respondent No.1,
           Shri G.A. Kunte, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
  ______________________________________________________________

                               CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 10 APRIL, 2017.

th

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri R.R. Gour, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri

Bhagwan M. Lonare, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent

No.1 and Shri G.A. Kunte, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

2 wp7054.16

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The original plaintiff has challenged the order passed by

the trial Court rejecting the application (Exhibit No.16) filed by him

seeking directions against the defendant No.2 to produce documents.

The learned trial Judge has recorded that the application (Exhibit

No.16) is filed in 2011 and since then the plaintiff has not pressed for

hearing of the matter and that the documents are not clearly described

in the application.

4. After examining the application (Exhibit No.16), I find

that the description of the documents given by the plaintiff in the

application is sufficient to identify the documents. The other

consideration while rejecting the application (Exhibit No.16) that it is

filed in 2011 and not pressed till the date of impugned order, is also

not proper as the delay cannot be attributed to the plaintiff.

5. Therefore, I find that the impugned order is unsustainable

and has to be set aside.

Hence, the following order :

(i) The impugned order is set aside.

                                                3                                            wp7054.16




                    (ii)     The application (Exhibit No.16) is restored.

(iii) The trial Court shall consider the application (Exhibit

No.16) on merits, according to law and dispose it within

one month.

Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the

circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

adgokar