Sunita Gaheninath Ghorpade And ... vs Srishailya Baburao Mulge
2017 Latest Caselaw 2733 Bom

                                                          WP No. 5698/16
                                      1


                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
              APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 5698 OF 2016

 1.       Sou. Sunita Gaheninath Ghorpade,
          Age 47 years, Occu. Agri.,
          R/o. Naldurg, Tq. Tuljapur,
          Dist. Osmanabad.

 2.       Gaheninath Jagannath Ghorpade,
          Age 60 years, Occu. Agri.,
          R/o. Naldurg, Tq. Tuljapur,
          Dist. Osmanabad.               ....Petitioners.

                  Versus

          Srishailya Baburao Mulge,
          Age 45 years, Occu. Agri.,
          R/o. Gujnur, Post Shahpur,
          Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad.      ....Respondent.

 Mr. V.C. Solshe, Advocate for petitioners.
 Mr. K.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent.


                                    CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.
                                    DATED : June 5, 2017.

 JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent,

heard both the sides for final disposal.

2. Present proceeding is filed to challenge the order

made by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tuljapur in R.C.S. No. 38/11

on Exh. 66. The suit is filed by present respondent for relief of

declaration that the transaction made in favour of defendant is

WP No. 5698/16

not out and out sale, but it is mortgage transaction and so, the

declaration to that effect be given and further, relief of

possession is claimed. At Exh. 66, the application was moved by

respondent/plaintiff for giving exhibits to some certified copies of

sale deeds executed in favour of defendant, present petitioner

by third party by contending that those documents can be used

for collateral purpose.

3. Firstly, these are the certified copies of the sale

deeds and so, they are private documents. In view of this

circumstance, the certified copies could not have been given

exhibits for any purpose. Necessary procedure as provided in law

needs to be followed, to give evidence on contention which the

plaintiff wants to prove. In view of these circumstances, the

order of the Trial Court cannot sustain in law. The order dated

1.3.2016 is hereby set aside. For that, the present petition is

allowed. There is always liberty for the plaintiff to take

appropriate steps. The Trial Court is not to get influenced by the

order made by this Court.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ] ssc/