High CourtsSingle Bench(2019) 01 BOM CK 0111

Cyriaco Rodrigues And Ors vs Anthony Rodrigues And Ors

Bombay High Court · Decided on 25 January 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
C.V. Bhadang, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 734 Of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 353 words

C.V. BHADANG, J.

1.

Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Keny, the learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2.

The challenge in this petition, at the instance of the petitioners/plaintiffs is to the order dated 12.03.2018, passed by the learned Trial Court, thereby dismissing the application (Exhibit-43), for production of documents. By virtue of the application (Exhibit-43), the petitioners had sought production of two documents, (i) the deposition of the Surveyor, Eknath Naik and (ii) his report dated 26.01.2015 alongwith the sketch.

3.

On 16.07.2018, the learned Counsel for the petitioners had restricted the claim to the production of the report and the sketch. In other words, the petitioners have not pressed for production of the deposition, at this stage.

4.

The learned Trial Court has dismissed the application only on the ground that the respondents were not parties to CMA No. 6/2014, in which the deposition was recorded. Considering the fact that the deposition is not sought to be produced, at this stage, the said consideration may not be relevant.

5.

Mr. Keny, the learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the petition has become infructuous as the documents were sought to be produced for the purpose of seeking temporary injunction and in as much as the application for temporary injunction is already decided. Ms. Kamat, the learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the documents are required for the purpose of deciding the suit also.

6.

Considering the overall circumstances, I find that the production of the report alongwith the sketch of the Surveyor, Mr. Eknath Naik can be allowed. In the result the following order is passed:

O R D E R

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order is hereby set aside.

(iii) The petitioners are permitted to produce the report of the Surveyor, Mr. Eknath Naik alongwith the sketch.

(iv) The production shall be subject to its proof, at the appropriate stage, in accordance with law.

(v) The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.