Ishwar Lalsingh Rajput And ... vs Suresh Chindu Shinde And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 8986 Bom

2023:BHC-AUG:18902
                                                                                     915-ao-40-2016.odt
                                                        (1)


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                              APEAL FROM ORDER NO.40 OF 2016
                 WITH CA/8510/2016 IN AO/40/2016 WITH AO/41/2016 WITH CA/
                                  8538/2016 IN AO/41/2016

                              ISHWAR LALSINGH RAJPUT AND ANOTHER
                                                VERSUS
                                SURESH CHINDU SHINDE AND OTHERS
                                                   ...
                           Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Patil Prakashsing B.
                      Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. M.M. Patil (Beedkar)
                                                   ...
                                                   CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.
                                                    DATED : AUGUST 31, 2023

                 PER COURT:-
                 1.               This appeal from order has been filed by the plaintiff cum

                 defendant in respective cases. The learned Principal District Judge,

                 Jalgaon by the impugned judgment and order set aside the judgment

                 and decree of the trial Court and directed to decide the suit afresh in

                 the light of observations recorded in para 14 and 15 of the judgment.

                 2.               Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the

                 learned Principal District Judge erred in remitting the matter back.

                 The depositions of the other side were recorded in criminal case. Its

                 certified copies were placed before the Court. Therefore, those

                 documents should have been received in evidence.                   The learned

                 Principal District Judge did not consider the legal position and

                 erroneously remitted the matter back to the trial Court.

                 3.               Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents in this

                 appeal would submit that the impugned judgment and order of the




                ::: Uploaded on - 01/09/2023                     ::: Downloaded on - 02/09/2023 06:52:01 :::
                                                                         915-ao-40-2016.odt
                                          (2)


 learned Principal District Judge, Jalgaon is legal and correct. Barely

 producing the certified copies is not admissible in evidence.

 Whatsoever the admissions were given by the witnesses in earlier

 proceeding, those must be referred to and proved. Unless the earlier

 admissions are proved, barely filing a certified copy is nothing but a

 piece of paper.

 4.                 Perused the impugned judgment and order. The learned

 Principal District Judge has rightly considered Section 18 of the

 Indian Evidence Act. Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act was also

 relevant. The procedure as laid in the said Act, how to prove the

 earlier admissions of the witnesses.

 5.                 The learned Principal District Judge had correctly applied

 the law. There are no errors of law on the face of record. There is no

 substance in the appeals. Hence, the following order :

                                        ORDER

(i) Both Appeal From Order are dismissed.

(ii) All pending civil applications stand disposed of.

(iii) The record and proceedings be returned to the Court of learned

Principal District Judge, Jalgaon.

(S.G. MEHARE, J.)

Mujaheed//