Shri Sudhakar S/O Dinkarrao ... vs Shri. Dilip S/O Dinkarrao Mandpe ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 5883 Bom

 Judgment                                            1                                  wp800.17.odt




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                 

                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 800  OF 2017

 Sudhakar S/o. Dinkarrao Mandpe,
 aged about 68 years, Occupation : Business,
 Resident of Plot No.145, Dinslaghar,
 South Sathe Marg, Dhantoli, Nagpur. 

                                                                         ....  PETITIONER.

                                      //  VERSUS //

 1. Shri Dilip S/o. Dinkarrao Mandpe,
   Aged about : 64 years, Retired Air Force,
    R/o. 30, Cosmoss Town, Jaitala Road,
    Nagpur.  

 2. Smt. Suhasini W/o. Subhash Deshmukh,
    R/o. 7350, Kite, Dr. Ananem Hills,
    California (92808) U.S.A. 

 3. Smt. Vijaya w/o. Arun Shenoi,
    R/o. Sterling Heights, 9, Cross-11,
    Main, Mallapuram, Bangalore.  
                                                       .... RESPONDENTS
                                                                     .
  ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri L.K.Khamborkar, Advocate for Petitioner. 
 Shri Rahul Tajne, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
 Shri Rajeev Madkholkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.  
 ___________________________________________________________________


                              CORAM : S.C.GUPTE, J.

DATED : AUGUST 11, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for both parties.

Judgment 2 wp800.17.odt

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for hearing

by consent of the parties.

3. Subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition

concerns permission to lead secondary evidence. The original documents in

the present case are three power of attorneys executed by respondent No.1

(original plaintiff) and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (defendant Nos. 3 and 4) in

favour of the petitioner (original defendant No.1). It appears that these

original power of attorneys are seized and are in the custody of Crime

Branch, Nagpur in connection with an offence registered against some of the

parties to the litigation. Since the originals cannot be secured, as they would

form part of the charge-sheet, an application was sought for leading

secondary evidence of these documents.

4. The documents which are in the custody of Crime Branch,

Nagpur can easily be summoned for production before the Court. There is no

need to keep the originals on record. Once the documents are produced on

record, copies compared with the originals can be admitted on record, with

direction to produce originals as and when required in the course of the trial.

5. Since this option is available and is in accordance with the

provisions of Law of Evidence, the petition is disposed of by quashing and

setting aside the order of secondary evidence and directing the trial Court to

issue a summons to produce documents to Crime Branch, Nagpur.

Judgment 3 wp800.17.odt

The petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to

costs.

JUDGE

RRaut..