Bombay High Court
Maroti S/O Bhivaji Hatwar And ... vs Bhimrao S/O Govindraoji Lade on 24 February, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 wp4183.20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4183 OF 2020
1) Maroti s/o Bhivaji Hatwar,
Aged about 69 years, Occ. Cultivator,
2) Shyamrao s/o Bhivaji Hatwar,
Aged about 69 years, Occ. Cultivator,
Both R/o village Parsodi,
Tahsil & District Bhandara-441906.
...PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
Bhimrao s/o Govindraoji Lade,
Aged 60 years, Occ. Private,
R/o village Saori, P.O. Jawahar
Nagar, Tahsil & District Bhandara-441906. ...RESPONDENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. V.D. Muley, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. H.R. Gadhiya, Advocate for respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- FEBRUARY 24, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties. Heard Mr. Muley, learned counsel for
petitioner and Mr. Gadhiya, learned counsel for respondent.
2. This petition is filed by the original defendants. The
cause for approaching the original defendants before this Court is
2 wp4183.20.odt
rejection of his application (Exh.-95) in Regular Civil Suit No.
266/2012 by learned 3rd Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhandara.
3. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and
mandatory permanent injunction against the petitioners. The suit
is contested by filing the written statement. The parties to the suit
also adduced their respective evidence. After the evidence was
over, the respondent-plaintiff filed an application (Exh.-90), for
permission to file documents on record. The said application,
though contested by the petitioners was partly allowed by the
learned Judge vide order dated 10.07.2020 thereby giving
permission to respondent/plaintiff for production of three
documents on record. These documents are in the nature of 7/12
extracts in respect of Gat No. 258/2/2, 258/2/3, 258/2/4 in the
names of Niranjan Bera, Parvatibai Gondane and Laxman Dhandu
Meshram respectively.
4. Thereafter, on 13.07.2020, an application (Exh.95) was
filed by the present petitioners seeking permission from the Court
to file certified copies of judgments and decrees in Regular Civil
Appeal No.53/2011, 56/2011 and 60/2011. Present petitioners
3 wp4183.20.odt
were the defendants in Regular Civil Suit Nos.162/2005,
155/2005 and 162/2005. These suits were filed against the
present petitioners by Niranjan Bera, Laxman Meshram and
Parvatabai Gondane. These are the persons in respect of whom
7/12 extracts were permitted by the trial Court to be brought on
record. The suits filed against the petitioners were decreed.
Against that, the present petitioners filed three different appeals
i.e. Regular Civil Appeal No. 53/2011, 56/2011 and 60/2011.
According to the petitioners, these three appeal were allowed by
learned appellate Court holding therein that present petitioners
are in possession of Gat Nos.258/2/2, 258/2/3, 258/2/4.
5. Except filing of the certified copies of these three
judgments and decrees of the appellate Court, the petitioners-
original defendants are not seeking permission to file any other
document.
6. In my view, these documents will be necessary
inasmuch as under Exh.-90, the Court has allowed the plaintiff to
file three 7/12 extracts on record which pertain to names of
respondent in the aforesaid three appeals. In my view, no
4 wp4183.20.odt
prejudice will be caused by giving permission to the petitioners to
place certified copies of appellate Court's judgments on record.
Giving permission to the defendants to place on record certified
copy of the judgments does not mean that the trial Court is barred
from appreciating those documents. Filing of documents is
something different and appreciation of such documents is
altogether different thing.
7. In my view, the Court below has committed error
which needs to be corrected while exercising jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, the impugned order passed by learned 3 rd Jt.
Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhandara rejecting application Exh.-
95 in Regular Civil Suit No.266/2012 is hereby quashed and set
aside.
Application Exh.-95 in Regular Civil Suit No. 266/2012
filed on behalf of the petitioners is hereby allowed.
The petitioners are permitted to place on record
certified copies of judgments and decrees passed in Regular Civil
Appeal Nos. 53/2011, 56/2011 and 60/2011.
5 wp4183.20.odt
It is expected from the learned Judge to decide the suit
which is pending from 2012, as expeditiously as possible and
within one year from 25.02.2021.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as
to costs.
JUDGE
kahale
