Mr. Santosh S/O Vikraman Pillai vs Umakant S/O Trimbakrao Deotale
2017 Latest Caselaw 158 Bom

                                        1                                           wp4514.16




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  

                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


 WRIT PETITION NO. 4514 OF 2016


 Mr. Santosh s/o Vikraman Pillai,
 Aged about 41 years, 
 Occupation - Business, 
 R/o 4-1, Bhojraj Apartments, 
 Gittikhadan Layout, Pratap Nagar, 
 Nagpur.                                                          ....       PETITIONER


                     VERSUS


 Umakant s/o Triambakrao Deotale,
 Aged about 58 years, 
 Occupation - Business, 
 R/o Flat No.101, Laxmi Prasad Apts.,
 Central Park Road, Dhantoli, Nagpur.                             ....       RESPONDENT

 ______________________________________________________________

               Shri B.B. Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner, 
   Shri N.A. Gaikwad, Advocate h/f. Shri Adwait Manohar, Advocate for
                             the respondent.
  ______________________________________________________________

                               CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 28-02-2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri B.B. Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and

Shri N.A. Gaikwad, Advocate holding for Shri Adwait Manohar,

Advocate for the respondent.

2 wp4514.16

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner/defendant has challenged the order passed

by the trial Court rejecting the application (Exhibit No.62) filed by him

seeking permission to produce documents on record. The defendant is

seeking to produce on record the returns of the company of which he

had been Director, for the assessment year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014.

4. The objection on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff is that

the documents are being sought to be produced at a very belated stage,

after the evidence of the plaintiff is recorded, he is cross-examined and

after the evidence of the defendant is recorded and he is cross-

examined. It is submitted that there are no pleadings regarding the

documents which are sought to be produced. It is further submitted

that the application (Exhibit No.62) is filed by the defendant only to

prolong the disposal of the civil suit.

5. After considering the submissions made by the respective

parties, I find that no serious prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff

if the defendant is permitted to produce the documents on record and

on the contrary the production of the documents in question would be

3 wp4514.16

helpful for the Court to finally adjudicate the controversy involved.

The grievance of the respondent/plaintiff that there are no bona fides

on the part of the defendant and the application (Exhibit No.62) is

filed only to prolong the disposal of the civil suit, can be taken care of

by granting him costs and directing the trial Court to dispose the civil

suit expeditiously.

6. Hence, the following order :

                    (i)      The impugned order is set aside. 

                    (ii)     The application (Exhibit No.62) is allowed. 

(iii) The petitioner/defendant shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to

the plaintiff and produce receipt on the record of the trial

Court within one month.

(iv) As the civil suit is of 2013, it is directed that the trial Court

shall dispose the civil suit within six months.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

JUDGE adgokar