Smt. Sheela Jawaharlal Nagori & Ors. v. Shri Ashokkumar N. Saraf & Ors.

Shri Ashokkumar N. Saraf & Ors. & Ors. ... Respondents. --- Mr. Vishal Kanade i/by S.S. Gawade for the Petitioners. Mr.S.M. Gorwadkar for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. --- CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATE : 25TH JUNE, 2012 P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2 By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioners challenge the orders passed by the District Judge- 9, Pune below Exhs. 67 and 70 in Civil Appeal No. 608 of 2007. Mr. Kanade, learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset restricts this Petition to challenge to the Order passed by the District Judge- 9 at Exh. 67 only. He submits that so far as the Order passed by the District Court-9 below Exh. 70 is concerned, his client is not challenging the same at this stage as the said order is an interlocutory order and that the liberty may be granted to Borey spb/ wp5230-12.sxw challenge the same at the appellate/revisional stage.

In view of this submission of Mr.Kanade, the present Writ Petition is restricted to the challenge to the impugned order passed below Exh. 67 and in so far as the order at Exh. 70 is concerned, the liberty is granted to the Petitioners to challenge the same at appellate/revisional stage. 3 The Application at Exh. 67 was taken out by the Petitioners/original Defendants for marking the documents produced by them in the trial Court with the lists at Exhs. 26 and 34. Alongwith the list at Exh. 26, the Petitioners, original Tenants, produced total 27 documents. So far as the list at Exh. 34 is concerned, the Petitioners sought to produce five documents. By the impugned order, the learned Judge allowed the Petitioners Application partly. So far as the documents at serial Nos. 1 to 18 in the list Exh. 26 are concerned, the prayer is allowed. So far as the documents at serial Nos. 19 to 27 in list at Exh. 26 and documents in the list at Exh.

34 are concerned, the prayer is rejected on the ground Borey spb/ wp5230-12.sxw of non-compliance of provisions of Section 5 of the Bombay Court Fees Act. 4 Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel, I find that the documents at list Exh. 34 are the certified copies of the plaint, judgments and decrees and the notices issued from time to time by the Pune Municipal Corporation. The certified copies are admissible in evidence in view of the provisions of Section 74 read with Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act. The documents at serial nos. 19 to 27 in the list at Exh. 26 are Telephone Bills, Electricity Bills, Shop Act Licence pertaining to the shop in question. These documents are also admissible in evidence as the same are public documents. The provisions of Section 5 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 cannot be relied upon to refuse to mark the said documents at serial Nos.19 to 27 and other 5 documents at list Exh.