Sau Nanda Dinkar Chaudhari vs Shri Kiran Govinda Bhangale And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 749 Bom

                                                                               955_WP292117.odt


         
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 2921 OF 2017

Nanda Dinkar Chaudhari
Age: 55 years, Occu.: Business,
Owner of Shri Samarth Food Products
R/o M-193, MIDC Jalgaon,
Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon.                                               ..PETITIONER
               VERSUS
1.  Kiran Govinda Bhangale
     Age: 48 years, Occu.: Business,
     R/o M-192, MIDC Jalgaon,
     Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.

2.  Vivek Shankar Chaudhari
     Age: Major, Occu.: Business,
     R/o Plot No. 26, 141/2,
     Behind Chimukale Ram Mandir,
     Ayodhya Nagar, Jalgaon.

3.  The Regional Manager,
     Maharashtra State Industrial Development
     Corporation, Jalgaon.                                           ..RESPONDENTS

                                     ....
Mr. A.G. Talhar, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S.P. Brahme, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
                                     ....

                                                       CORAM :  S.B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : 15th MARCH, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner. Issue notice for final

disposal to Respondent No.1. Notice to other respondents is not required

1 / 4

955_WP292117.odt

as they are not the contesting parties. Mr. Brahme, learned Counsel

waives service of notice for Respondent No.1.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of both sides.

3 By this petition, the legality and correctness of the order dated

16th January, 2017 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Jalgaon in Civil Suit No. 109 of 2007 has been questioned.

4. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the application

( Exhibit 201 ) below which the impugned order has been passed was

moved by the petitioner only to emphasise the point that original plaintiff

i.e. Respondent No.1 has not approached the Court with clean hands.

Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 refutes it. He submits that

Respondent No.1 has made himself very clear that he is not relying upon

the document in question which is at Exhibit 92 and this would only show

the conduct of Respondent No.1 is clean or otherwise such a candid

expression of mind would not have been there.

5. The impugned order shows that the learned Civil Judge has

2 / 4

955_WP292117.odt

rejected the application viz. Exhibit 201 on the ground that there was

neither any appropriate nor any good reason for allowing the application

in a backdrop punctuated by admission of original plaintiff that he was

not relying upon the document in question. The three applications viz.

Exhibits 199, 200 and 201 arise from the issue of examining the witness

i.e. examiner of disputed document in respect of the document in question

which is at Exhibit 92.

6. These reasons, I do not think, could be seen as steeped in any

perversity or illegality. It is well settled principle of law that

extraordinary writ jurisdiction can be invoked only in those cases where

the orders under challenge are perverse or illegal or are so illogical that

they could not have been passed the way they have been in the ordinary

course. The impugned order does not fall in any of these categories.

7. As regards conduct of the plaintiff, I must say, it is for the Trial

Court to determine the same in the facts and circumstances of the suit.

8. There is no merit in this petition. Petition stands dismissed

with costs. It is also directed that the suit, which appears to be about ten

years, shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and in any case

3 / 4

955_WP292117.odt

within a period of two months from the date of the order. Parties shall

cooperate with the Trial Court in expeditious disposal of the matter. Rule

is discharged.

( S.B. SHUKRE, J. ) SSD

4 / 4