Bombay High Court
Hanuman Pednekar And Anr vs Kulsum Mohamed Akbar And 2 Ors on 30 September, 2024
2024:BHC-GOA:1640 3 WP 849 OF 2023.ODT
2024:BHC-GOA:1640
Esha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 849 OF 2023
1. Shri. Hanumant Yadav Pednekar, s/o
Yadav Pednekar, Age 51 years,
Married, R/o H. No. 28, Behind
Swami Samarth Mandir, Rumdamol,
Davorlim-Salcete, Goa.
2. Smt. Sangeeta Pednekar, Age 50
years, w/o Hanumant Pednekar, H.
No. 28, Behind Swami Samarth
Mandir, Rumdamol, Davorlim-
Salcete, Goa. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Smt. Kulsum Mohamed Akbar, Age
55 years, Housewife, Married, R/o H.
No. 40, Opp. Waxpol Service Centre,
Maruti Mandir Road, Housing
Board, Davorlim-Salcete-Goa.
2. Shri. Shaikh Mohamad Akbar, s/o
late Shaikh Ismail, Age 70 years,
Married, Businessmen;
3. Smt. Yasmin Akbar Shaikh, d/o
Quasim Shaikh, Age 44 years,
Housewife,
Both R/o Flat No. 14, Galaxy Apts.,
Near Cine Vishant, Aquem, Margao,
Goa. ... Respondents
*****
Mr. Rohan Rama Dessai, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. Iftikhar Agha with Mr. Ketan Morajkar, Mr. Utkarsh
Sawant and Ms. Valencia Fernandes, Advocates for the
Respondents.
Page 1 of 4
30th Sept. 2024
::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2024 22:13:30 :::
3 WP 849 OF 2023.ODT
CORAM: BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED: 30th SEPTEMBER 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. The matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission
stage itself with consent.
3. Heard Mr. Dessai for the Petitioners and Mr. Agha for the
Respondents.
4. The issue involved in the present Petition is the rejection of
the Application for production of the additional document i.e. the
judgment and decree dated 14.06.2017 passed by the Trial Court
in Special Civil Suit No. 136/2003.
5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that though
the amendment Application was allowed, the Petitioners were
prevented from producing such a document.
6. Mr. Agha submits that the Petitioners, who are the
Defendants in the suit are trying to produce only one document
suppressing the other documents in connection to the said suit.
30th Sept. 2024
3 WP 849 OF 2023.ODT
7. The issue involved is only with regard to the production of
the document and that too, a judgment passed by the learned Trial
Court i.e. the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2017 passed in
Special Civil Suit No. 136/2003.
8. Even otherwise, a document that the Petitioners are seeking
to produce is a judgment passed by the Civil Court wherein the
Respondents are one of the parties to the said suit. The said
document was rejected by the Trial Court only on the ground that
the Respondents filed an Appeal against the said judgment and
decree before the District Court and now, Second Appeal No. 3 of
2021 is pending before this Court and thus, the proceedings have
not attained finality.
9. The Application was only for the production of a document.
The question whether the matter has attained finality, need not be
gone into at this stage. Even otherwise, a document which the
Petitioners seek to produce being the judgment passed by the
Court, a judicial note could have been taken by the Court.
10. The objections raised by the Respondents with regard to the
suppression of other documents could be addressed and decided
at the time of final hearing of the said matter.
30th Sept. 2024
3 WP 849 OF 2023.ODT
11. The learned Trial Court, by mixing these issues, failed to
consider the scope of the provisions in connection with the
production of the document. Accordingly, the impugned order
needs to be quashed and set aside. The learned Trial Court is
otherwise entitled to take judicial note of the said document,
which is a judgment and decree passed by the competent Court,
though the same is challenged before this Court in Second Appeal
No. 3 of 2021, which is pending disposal.
12. Having said so, the impugned order is hereby quashed and
set aside. The Application for the production of the document is
allowed.
13. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.
30th Sept. 2024
