Bombay High Court
Mohan Tumadu Patil vs Raghunath Kashinath Patil on 15 June, 2017
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
783.2017WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 783 OF 2017
Mohan Tumadu Patil
Age : 60 years; Occu: Agri.
R/o Borad Tq. Taloda
Dist. Nandurbar. ...Petitioner
Versus
Raghunath Kashinath Patil
Age : 57 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o Maloni, Tq. Agri,
Dist. Nandurbar. ...Respondent
...
Mr. P. A. Bhosle, Advocate h/f Mr. A. B. Kale,
Advocate for petitioner
Mr. S. V. Natu, Advocate for respondent/sole
...
[CORAM: SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
Date: 15th June, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally with consent of learned advocates for the parties.
2. This petition has been moved against order dated 1st
December, 2016 passed by civil judge, junior division,
Taloda, on exhibit-57 in regular civil suit no. 18 of 2015.
Exhibit-57 had been filed for production of documents,
pursuant to order XIII, Rule 3(1) (a) of the Civil Procedure
Code.
783.2017WP.odt
3. Plaintiff resisted the application filed by the present
petitioner-defendant for production of documents and
contended that said documents cannot be produced at the
time of cross-examination of the witness and relied on
judgment in the case of Purushottam s/o Shankar Ghodgaonkar
V/s. Gajanan s/o Shankar Ghodgaonkar & ors. reported in 2012(6)
Mh.L.J. 648.
4. Trial court has turned down the request made on
behalf of petitioner-defendant under said exhibit for
production of documents.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner-defendant has
contended that substantive provisions section 145 under
the evidence Act read with order XIII, Rule 3 (1) (a) of Civil
Procedure Code clearly indicate that documents can be
produced at the time of cross-examination of the witness of
the other party. As such, request would not have been
declined as provisions allow parties to produce documents
during cross-examination. He contends that trial court had
been swayed by Judgment reported in 2012 (6) Mh.L.J. 648
which had been decided on different footing, and situation
therein is wide apart from present situation.
783.2017WP.odt
6. Learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff contends
that going on by the ratio laid down and emerging, fault
can hardly be attributable to the decision impugned in
present petition.
7. It appears that the trial court is guided by decision of
learned single Judge of this court reported in 2012 (6)
Mh.L.J. 648. It appears that the judgment relied on by the
trial court has been rendered in different state of affairs.
8. Head note appearing in citation 1999 (11) LJSOFT 4
may well be taken into account which reads thus:
a) " Order VII Rule 18 sub rule (2) in addition to the
above stated two purposes further allows the
reservation of the document even in answer to any
case set up by the defendant. Under these
circumstances, when the document is so reserved
and produced while in the cross-examination the
Court cannot object the production of that document.
On the contrary, the production has to be allowed,
and therefore, the reasoning given by the trial Court
that good grounds should have been shown by the
petitioner is not correct." (Para 6).
783.2017WP.odt
9. Having regard to the observations and head note so
also taking into account substantive provisions under the
Evidence Act, section 145 read with order XIII, Rule 3 (1)
(a) of Civil Procedure Code, it is expedient to set aside
order impugned in present petition and grant the petition.
10. In view of aforesaid, writ petition stands allowed in
terms of prayer clause (C).
11. Writ petition stands disposed of. Rule made absolute
accordingly.
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
vdk
