Bombay High Court
Manoj Brijlal Kapoor vs Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt Ltd ... on 27 January, 2021
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
(6) WPST-1061-21.doc
BDP-SPS
Bharat
D.
Pandit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by Bharat D.
Pandit
Date:
2021.01.30
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 1061 OF 2021
15:24:56 +0530
Manoj Brijlal Kapoor ..... Petitioner.
V/s
Khanelwal Laboratories Ltd. & Ors. ..... Respondents.
Ms. Sonal a/w Rosy Kapoor i/b R.P. Shirole for the Petitioner.
Mr. Kunal Dwarkadas a/w Mr. Vaibhav Bajpai i/b Swapan Samdani for
Respondent No.1.
CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE: JANUARY 27, 2021
P.C.:-
1] This Petition is by Defendant No.5 to S.C. Suit No.7468 of 1983.
The said suit is for recovery of amount. In the said suit, application-
Exhibit-4 is taken out by the Petitioner to mark documents produced
by him at Exhibits-A to AAP referred to in examination-in-chief of
Defendant No.1 and also to call for record of Criminal Appeal No.317
of 2012 with Criminal Case No.242/P/1984. The said prayer came to
be rejected by the order impugned. As such, this Petition.
2] The submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are,
Defendant No.1 has settled its case with original Plaintiff and
(6) WPST-1061-21.doc
Defendant No.1 has deposed on behalf of the Defendants including the
Petitioner/Defendant. As such, Defendant No.1 has jeopardized
interest of Petitioner/Defendant No.5. According to the learned
Counsel, documents referred to above need to be exhibited as same
are necessary for deciding true controversy between the parties to the
Petition. The learned Counsel then would invite attention of this
Court to certain developments during pendency of suit viz. initiation of
suit in this Court, transfer of the same to City Civil Court, Bombay,
recording of evidence by the Court Commissioner by consent of parties
and the act of marking documents as Exhibits, subject to objection of
the Plaintiff and ruling thereon by the court.
3] According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, even if the
suit is fixed for final hearing, that by itself will not preclude the court
from deciding the issue as regards whether documents are to be
admitted in evidence, as the same is required to be decided before
final hearing of the suit.
4] While countering the said submissions, the learned Counsel for
the Respondents would submit that Petition is not maintainable as
(6) WPST-1061-21.doc
same is initiated after a period of more than three years without any
explanation and the same suffers from delay and laches. Further
submission is, documents produced at Exhibits-A to AAP are not
original and that is why objection was raised qua its admissibility as no
proper evidence in support thereof was led. Reliance has been placed
by the learned Counsel on the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in
Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia vs. Subodh Mody reported in 2008 (6)
Mh.L.J. 886 so as to substantiate his contention.
5] Considered rival submissions.
6] Apparently, Petition appears to be suffering from delay and
laches as application-Exhibit-4 came to be moved when the suit was
fixed for final hearing. The order came to be passed below Exhibit-4
way back in 2017. Though during the course of hearing delay is
sought to be explained by bringing to the notice of the Court certain
events from roznama about settlement talks going on between the
parties, however, that by itself will not be sufficient to condone the
delay of more than three years in preferring the present writ petition
before this Court. Petition as such suffers from delay and laches.
(6) WPST-1061-21.doc
7] Apart from above, the fact that documents at Exhibits-A to AAP
are not in the form of original documents is not in dispute. That being
so, no case for interference in extraordinary jurisdiction is made out.
Petition as such fails and stands dismissed.
( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )
