Skip to content


Gangadhar Mahadeo Mirashi Vs. Krishnaji Vishram Nadkarni - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Second Appeal No. 104 of 1918
Judge
Reported in(1920)22BOMLR819; 57Ind.Cas.598
AppellantGangadhar Mahadeo Mirashi
RespondentKrishnaji Vishram Nadkarni
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....documents in court-discovery-practice and procedure.;a party who sues upon a certain document must produce it at the time he files the plaint and not spring it upon the opposite party a considerable time after when the suit comes on for hearing. - [couto; m.l. pendse, jj.] in the first instance the order passed under s. 132(5) is an order of a summary nature and does not conclude the rights of the petitioners, because while passing the assessment order, it is always open to the petitioners to point out that the assets recovered in the search were not undisclosed to point out that the assetsrecovered in the search were not undisclosed income. secondly, the order passed under s. 132(5) is appealable under the provisions of the act and if there is any violation in the exercise of the power,..........the decree of the lower court. i agree with the reasons which are given by the learned subordinate judge. rule 14 of order vii was enacted in order that its provisions might be complied with, and the reasons for its enactment are very clear. it is certainly desirable that a party who sues upon a certain -document should produce it at the time he files the plaint and not spring it upon the opposite party two or three years after when the suit comes on for hearing. the defendant of coarse has a remedy, if he chooses, to apply for discovery. but apparently the remedy by discovery is not made much use of in the mofussil. therefore both the lower courts, in my opinion, were perfectly right in finding that the plaintiffs had not proved their case. therefore the appeal must be dismissed with.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of the plaint property. They relied in the plaint as the basis of their title on a certain will and an award. Neither of these documents was produced when the plaint was filed, as ought to have been done, under Order VII, Rule 14. The will was only produced on the 9th of February 1916, the day before the judgment was given, and the award was not produced at all. The Judge, therefore, exercising his discretion under Rule 18 did not allow the plaintiffs to produce the material documents at that stage of the case and dismissed the claim. In appeal the Assistant Judge confirmed the decree of the lower Court. I agree with the reasons which are given by the learned Subordinate Judge. Rule 14 of Order VII was enacted in order that its provisions might be complied with, and the reasons for its enactment are very clear. It is certainly desirable that a party who sues upon a certain -document should produce it at the time he files the plaint and not spring it upon the opposite party two or three years after when the suit comes on for hearing. The defendant of coarse has a remedy, if he chooses, to apply for discovery. But apparently the remedy by discovery is not made much use of in the mofussil. Therefore both the lower Courts, in my opinion, were perfectly right in finding that the plaintiffs had not proved their case. Therefore the appeal must be dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //