Bombay High Court
Shramsafala Education Society ... vs Chandrakant Bhanudas Bhadane And ... on 28 November, 2017
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi
1 WP 1972-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1972 OF 2017
1) Shramsafala Education Society
Chopda Road, Near Devali Phata,
Amalner Tq. Amalner
Dist. Jalgaon.
2) The Chairman,
Shri Subhash Dodhu Bhandarkar,
Age 71 years, occupation Agriculture,
Shramsafalya Education Society
Ramai Physical Education College
Dhule Road, Amalner Tq.Amalner
Dist. Jalgaon.
3) The Secretary,
Sau. Gita Subhash Bhadarkar,
Age 69 years, Occupation Household,
Shramsafalya Education Society
R/o Gayatri Colony, Behind
JDCC Bank, Dhule Road,
Amalner Tq. Amalner
Dist. Jalgaon. .. Petitioners
VS.
1) Chandrakant Bhanudas Bhadane,
Age 47 years, Occupation Agriculture,
R/o Samarth Nagar, Market Yard,
Amalner Tq. Amalner,
Dist. Jalgaon.
2) The In Charge Principal
Ramai Physical Education College,
Amalner Tq. Amalner,
Dist. Jalgaon.
::: Uploaded on - 30/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2017 01:40:28 :::
2 WP 1972-2017
3) Shri Vivekanand Laxman Bhadarkar,
Age 47 years, Occupation Business,
R/o Japan Jeen Compound, Vipro
Road, Amalner, Tq. Amalner,
Dist. Jalgaon.
4) Shri Rman Devisinha Patil,
Age 68 years, Occupation Retired,
R/o Adjacent to School No.6,
Amalner, Tq. Amalner,
Dist. Jalgaon.
5) Dilipsingh Ajabsingh Patil,
Age 47 years, Occupation Agriculture,
R/o At Post Bhortek Tq. Amalner,
Dist. Jalgaon.
6) Shri Arjun Ambadas Khadake,
Age 51 years, Occupation Service,
R/o In front of M.J. College,
Chanakya Apartment, Jalgaon,
Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon. .. Respondents
----
Mr. A. G. Talhar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Girish Rahe, Advocate for respondent No.1.
----
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI. J.
DATE : 28-11-2017
ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi. J.)
1. With consent of both the parties, mater is taken up for
final hearing at the admission stage.
3 WP 1972-2017
2. As per the order of this Court dated 16 th February 2017
such notice for final disposal was given.
3. The original defendants No.1, 2 and 4 have challenged the
order below Exh.114 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division in Special
Civil Suit No.72 of 2011.
4. The factual matrix leading to the petition are that, the
respondent No.1, who is the original plaintiff, has filed the said suit for
the recovery of amount of Rs.20,76,010/-. By earlier round of
litigation which was before this Court in respect of production of
documents, an order came to be passed while disposing of the Writ
Petition No.6486 of 2015 on 09-09-2015. However, by way of Civil
Application No.12856 of 2015 in the said writ petition further orders
have been passed. In fact, the original plaintiff had called upon the
defendants to produce certain documents from 1996 to 2008. It has
been decided in the said civil application taking into consideration
submission made on behalf of the present petitioners that, they should
comply with and produce the documents which are in their possession
from July 1996 to 2008. Petitioners contended that they do not possess
documents for the period between 1990 to July 1996. It was directed
4 WP 1972-2017
that the said point should be decided by the concerned Court. In
pursuance to the said order certain documents have been placed
alongwith Exh.109, before the concerned Court. Thereafter, an order
came to be passed on 19-04-2016 by the learned trial court that the
production of those documents is not inconsonance with the order
passed by this Court on 09-09-2015. However, it appears that, even at
that stage, the learned trial court had not taken note of the order
passed by this Court on 09-10-2015 i.e. in the civil application. It has
been observed that, there is only partial compliance. This order is not
under challenge in this petition, and therefore, I would refrain myself
from making any kind of observations, however the order that is under
challenge here is, order below Exh.114. By the application at Exh.114,
the present petitioners had prayed that, they have produced original
documents along with Exh.109 but they require the original
proceeding books and other documents for their daily needs, and
therefore, it was prayed that they should be verified by the Court or
any officer of the court and after verification of the original with the
true copies thereof. The original be returned to them.
5. Say of the respondent No.1 has been called. The say is
mainly on the point that there is no compliance of the order of this
5 WP 1972-2017
Court by the defendants. After hearing both sides, the learned Trial
Court has held that, the suit involves the recovery of dues of the
plaintiff's salary, and therefore, before considering prayer of
defendants, to get verified copies of the proceeding books, from the
original, they were called upon to obey the order of this Court. The
learned Trial Court went on further and observed that, in case
defendants failed to comply with the said order till next date, it will be
treated as their willful fault and breach of the order of the Court to be
followed by consequent suitable orders. This order is under challenge
in this petition.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has
taken me through the record and submitted that, as regards the
documents for the period from 1990 to 1996, this Court had directed
that the said point should be decided by the learned Trial Court. It
was submitted before this Court that, the present petitioners are not in
possession of those documents, therefore unless the said point of
possession and thereupon asking them to produce those documents is
adjudicated, there cannot be a compliance. Further as regards the
documents for the period from 1996-2008 is concerned, according to
the petitioners those documents have been produced on record along
6 WP 1972-2017
with application exh.109. Since those documents were the original
documents and they were required by the defendants for their daily
routine, they had prayed for the verification and return of the original.
He also submitted that, without deciding the point which as per the
orders of this Court was required to be decided by the Trial Court, the
Trial Court ought not to have ask the defendants to comply with the
order.
7. Per contra, it has been submitted by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent No.1 that, he has pointed out as to what
is the shortcoming in the documents in respect of those documents
along with Exh.109. Further he conceeded the fact that as regards the
possession of documents for the period from 1990 to1996 is
concerned, the concerned Trial Court has been directed by this Court
to decide the issue. However, as regards the documents for the period
1996 to 2008 are concerned, all the documents have not been
produced by the defendants, which they are duty bound.
8. It is to be noted that, the application Exh.114 was given
with a limited prayer. It was specifically stated that, certain
documents have been produced along with Exh.109 with true copies,
however original are required for the day today affairs of the
7 WP 1972-2017
defendants, and therefore, a request was made that a verification
should be done in respect of the true copies with the original and the
original be returned. In fact it was within the prerogative or
discretionary power of the concerned Trial Court to allow the said
application without calling for the say of the other side. The point
whether there is full compliance of the order of this Court or partial
compliance, was not at all involved in application Exh.114. At the
most, it was the part of Exh.109. While considering application
Exh.109, it has been observed by the Trial Court that, the said
production of documents is not in consonance with the order of this
Court. The parties were at liberty to have their grievances redressed in
respect of the order passed below Exh.109. Again limiting to the issue
that is involved in this writ petition which is in respect of order below
Exh.114, it is to be noted that, it was in the interest of the parties to
get the verification done and return the original because, (1) the
originals were required by the defendants for their daily routine work,
(2) in order to avoid loss or tampering, and the purpose can be said to
be served by verification. The said application ought to have been
allowed by the Trial Court. If at all the plaintiff intended to have look
at the original proceedings, he can ask for the inspection of the
documents, and with such precautions, the application could have
8 WP 1972-2017
been disposed of. However, the learned Trial Court it appears that,
unnecessarily mingled with the various prayers and aspects. The delay
in the disposal of the suit could have been avoided, so also multiplicity
of litigation if the said application Ex.114 would have been allowed.
9. Taking into consideration the fact that, the original can be
returned to the defendants after verification of the same with the true
copies, the petition deserves to be allowed. However, at this stage I
would like to observe that as regards the points, (1) Whether there is
compliance of the order passed by this Court earlier in Civil
Application No.12856 of 2015, and (2) In respect of observations
regarding documents for the period between 1990 till July 1996 is
concerned, they are yet to be adjudicated or are subject to be decided
by the Trial Court. With these observations, I proceed to pass
following order.
ORDER
1) The petition is hereby allowed.
2) The order passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Amalner, in Special Civil Suit No.72 of 2011 below
Exh.114 is hereby set aside.
9 WP 1972-2017
3) The Trial Court or any responsible officer of the
Court deputed for this purpose should verify the original
documents produced along with Exh.109 with the true
copies thereof produced by the defendants and return the
same to the defendants.
4) It is made clear that, in view of observations in the
paragraph No.9, the learned Trial Court is at liberty to
decide those points.
5) Petition is hereby disposed of with no order as to
costs.
[SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE
vjg/-.
