✦ Bombay High Court · 26 Jul 2011

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR v. Gauri

R M SAVANT

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.3496/2011 Gangubai W/o Kisan Jaware -vs- Gauri W/o Girdharilal Agrawal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Court's or Judge's Orders. Shri A. J. Thakkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 26/07/2011. The above petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 26/07/2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldana, by which order the application Exhibit-133 for examination of witness to prove the documents, which are sought to be produced through Exhibit-129 came to be allowed. The said documents are mainly relating to the Bank in question. The said application filed by the plaintiff came to be allowed by the trial Court. The gist of the reasoning of the trial Court was that for a just decision of the suit, the plaintiff must be given a chance to prove the said documents produced vide Exhibit-129, though the suit was at the stage of hearing of the arguments of the parties. The said documents in question were sought to be produced earlier, but were not allowed to be produced, in view of the fact that the proper procedure for the same was not adopted by the plaintiff. Thereafter the said application Exhibit-133 came to be filed. wp3496.11.odt In my view, the reasons mentioned by the trial Court in allowing the said application at Exhibit-133 in the impugned order dated 26/07/2010 are unexceptional and therefore do not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. KHUNTE JUDGE

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 227.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 26 Jul 2011. The bench was R M SAVANT.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments