Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 54591 (BOM)

M/S. RAMDEOBABA SAHAKARI GRUHA NIRMAN SAMITI LTD.,THR. SECRETARY, PRABHAT S. DHADIWAL AND ORS v. SHAILENDRA S/O LATE BHOMRAJ CHHAJED AND OTHERS

WP/7263/2024 · 2025-06-13

Shri Ravindra Madhusudan Joshi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 wp7263.24.J-spk.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.7263 OF 2024 1. M/s. Ramdeobaba Sahakari Gruha Nirman Samiti Limited, a Society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act having its office at Sadar Bazar, Nagpur through its Secretary - Prabhat s/o Late Surajmal Dhadiwal. 2. Prabhat s/o Late Surajmal Dhadiwal, Aged about 63 years, Occupation Business, nominated member of plaintiff no.1 Society, Resident of Katol Road, Chhaoni, Nagpur. 3. Vimalchand s/o Late Ratanlal Dhadiwal (since deceased) through legal representative Sunil s/o Late Vimalchand Dhadiwal, aged about major, Occupation Business, Resident of Kings Apartment, Link Feeder Road, Nelson Square, Nagpur. 4. Prakash s/o Late Surajmal Dhadiwal (since deceased) through legal representative- (i) Smt. Mridhula w/o Late Prakash Dhadiwal, Aged about major, Occ. Housewife. (ii) Adarsh s/o Late Prakash Dhadiwal, Aged about major, Occ: Business. (iii) Vikram s/o Prakash Dhadiwal, Aged about major, Occ: Business. (iv) Rashmi Sukesh Baghel, Aged about major, Occ: Interior Designer. 2025:BHC-NAG:6702 2 wp7263.24.J-spk.odt All R/o Katol Road, Chhaoni, Nagpur. 5. Pravin s/o Late Girdharilal Chandak, Aged about major, Occupation: Business, R/o 151, Tekdi Lane, Sitabuldi, Nagpur. 6. Shiv s/o Late Babulal Khemka, Aged about 70 years, Occupation: Business, having its office above Khemka Motors, Residency Road, Sadar, Nagpur. 7. Prem s/o Late Mahabirprasad Tekriwal Aged about 55 years, Occupation: Business Resident of Byramji Town, Chitnavis Layout, Nagpur. ....... PETITIONERS ...V E R S U S... 1. Shailendra s/o Late Bhomraj Chhajed, Aged about major, Occupation: Busin ess, Secretary of Plaintiff No.1 Society, R/o Near Police Chowki, Sadar, Nagpur. 2. Anil s/o Late Sampatlal Parekh, Aged about major, Occupation: Chartered Accountant, President of Plaintiff No.1 Society, Resident of Golchha Marg, Sadar, Nagpur. 3. Vijay s/o Late Premkaran Surana, Aged about major, Occupation Chartered Accountant, R/o Meghraj Golchha Marg, Sadar, Nagpur. 4. Smt. Kusumlata w/o Late Rajendra Jain, Aged about major, R/o Azad Chowk, Sadar, Nagpur. 5. Pandit Shivkaran Sharma Chhangani, Aged about major, Occupation Ayurvedic Practitioner, R/o Tekdi Lane, Resp Nos.3,4,5,6,8,9 and 10 deleted vide Court’s order dt. 16.04.2025. 3 wp7263.24.J-spk.odt Sitabuldi, Nagpur. 6. Prabhat Singh, Aged about major, Occupation: Service, R/o Friends Colony, Katol Road, Nagpur. 7. Vinodkumar s/o Arjundas Sahni, Aged about major, doing business in the name and style of A. D. Bricks, Gaddigodam, Sadar, Nagpur. 8. Manoharmal s/o Late Ratanlal Kothari, Aged about major, Occupation Business, R/o Opposite Corporation Library, Gandhi Chowk, Sadar, Nagpur. 9. Maganmal M. Jain, Aged about major, Occupation Chartered Accountant, R/o Opposite Hislop College, Temple Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur. 10. Dr. Prakash s/o Bulakidas Banthia, Aged about major, Occupation Psychiatrist, R/o B-12, Laxmi Nagar, Nagpur. ....... RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R. M. Sharma, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. S. M. Ghare, Advocate for Respondent No.1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE: 13 th JUNE, 2025. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. By consent of both the sides, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This petition takes exception to the order dated 4 wp7263.24.J-spk.odt 21.08.2024 passed below Exh.132 by learned trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.1449/2004, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff for issuing witness summons to the authority i.e. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nagpur for production of document came to be rejected. 3. The petitioner/plaintiff moved application Exh.132 for seeking production of the original documents, the certified copy of which was produced by the defendant before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court rejected the application by holding that the plaintiff himself is not sure as to whether the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nagpur is having custody of the original documents having signature of Bhojraj Chhajed. It was also held to be a fishing enquiry by plaintiff and this resulted into the dismissal of the application. 4. Heard counsel for both sides. 5. The application Exh.132 has been filed before the learned trial Court in the backdrop of the fact that the defendant filed certified copy of the said document along with Exh.118. Admittedly said document is certified by office of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nagpur. Once such fact is undisputed it 5 wp7263.24.J-spk.odt was not open for the learned trial Court to hold application Exh.13 to be the fishing enquiry. The filing of the document by the defendant trust itself is sufficient to prima facie hold that the original document is with the concerned authority. Moreover, permission granted by the learned trial Court for production of the said document also indicates that it is relevant for the decision of this case. In such circumstances, there was absolutely no reason or justification for the learned trial Court to reject application Exh.132. Since the defendant has produced the said document on record no prejudice of whatsoever nature will cause to the defendant if original is brought before the Court. On the contrary it will help the trial Court to decide the lis effectively. 6. As a result of above discussion, impugned order is set aside. Application Exh.132 stands allowed. 7. Learned counsel for the defendant seeks expeditious disposal of the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner records no objection for the same. The suit is pending since the year 2004. It is high time that the suit is decided within a stipulated period. Hence, the learned trial Court is directed to decide the same within a period of six months. As per order dt. 07.07.2025 the judgment is corrected. 6 wp7263.24.J-spk.odt 8. Petition stands allowed in above terms. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) NSN