Bombay High Court
Rajender Singh Sethi S/O Harnamsingh ... vs Shreegopal Jugal Kishore Barasia And ... on 2 March, 2020
Author: N.J. Jamadar
Bench: N.J. Jamadar
1/7 13-s-2576-2008.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO. 2576 OF 2008
Rajender Singh Sethi
S/o. Harnamsingh Sethi & Anr. .. Plaintiffs
Vs.
Shreegopal Jugal Kishore Barasia
& Anr. .. Defendants
Mr.Omprakash Pandey a/w. Ms.Aneeta Vasani i/b M/s. Pandey and
Co. for plaintiffs.
Mr.Ashok M. Saraogi a/w. Mr. Upadhyay for defendant Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : N.J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 2ND MARCH 2020 P.C.
1. The plaintiffs' first witness Mr.Rajender Singh Sethi (PW-1) is present in Court and is administered oath.
Name : Rajender Singh Sethi (PW-1)
Age : 55 years
Occu. : Business
Add. : 368/105, Daddy's Garden Bungalow,
Sher-E-Punjab Co-opearative Housing Society Limited, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093.
On S.A. Further examination in chief of PW-1 :
2. The affidavit in lieu of examination in chief, dated 13 th January 2020 is now shown to me. It is affirmed by me. It bears my signature. The contents of the further affidavit in lieu of examination in chief are true and correct.
Shraddha Talekar PS ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 05:06:40 ::: 2/7 13-s-2576-2008.doc
3. The affidavit in lieu of examination in chief is marked as Exh.P- 1/1.
4. The plaintiffs have filed the additional compilation of 20 documents. A statement of admission and denial is made on behalf of the defendants. The defendants have admitted in evidence the documents at Sr.Nos.14 and 17.
5. The documents at Sr.Nos.14 and 17 are marked as Exh.P-1/2 and Exh.P-1/3, respectively.
6. The document at Sr.No.2 being a certified copy of Deed of Transfer dated 20th February 2007 is marked as Exh.P-1/4, subject to objection on behalf of the defendants that the said document is incomplete. (In view of averments in paragraph 3 of Exh.P-1/1).
7. The document at Sr.No.3 being Account Opening Form, is marked as Exh.P-1/5, for identification.
8. The document at Sr.No.4 being a passbook issued by State Bank of India, Dadar Millenium Branch, Mumbai in respect of Account No. 30365111340 is marked as Exh.P-1/6.
9. The document at Sr.No.5 being a email dated 16-04-2008 is marked as Exh.P-1/7, subject to objection on behalf of the defendants. (In view of averments in paragraph 7 of Exh.P-1/1).
Shraddha Talekar PS
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 05:06:40 :::
3/7 13-s-2576-2008.doc
10. The document at Sr.No.6 being a letter issued by Assistant General Manager, Bank of India dated 16-04-2008 is marked as Exh.P- 1/8. (In view of averments in paragraph 8 of Exh.P-1/1).
11. The document at Sr.No.7 being a letter dated 16-04-2008 issued by Assistant General Manager, Bank of India to Joint Sub-Registrar Andheri-I, M.S.D. is marked as Exh.P-1/9. (In view of averments in paragraph 9 of Exh.P-1/1).
12. The document at Sr.No.8 being a letter dated 28-04-2008 along with Postal receipts is marked as Exh.P-1/10. (In view of averments in paragraph 10 of Exh.P-1/1).
13. The document at Sr.No.9 being Postal Acknowledgment dated 30-04-2008 is marked as Exh.P-1/11. (In view of averments in paragraph 11 of Exh.P-1/1).
14. The document at Sr.No.10 being the plaintiffs' letter dated 2-05- 2008 along with postal receipts is marked as Exh.P-1/12. (In view of averments in paragraph 12 of Exh.P-1/1).
15. The document at Sr.No.11 being the postal acknowledgment, evidencing the receipt of the article by the defendant on 3-05-2008 is marked as Exh.P-1/13. (In view of averments in paragraph 13 of Exh.P-1/1).
16. The document at Sr.No.12 being a letter dated 5-05-2008 Shraddha Talekar PS ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 05:06:40 ::: 4/7 13-s-2576-2008.doc addressed by Advocate Ashok Dhanuka to the plaintiff along with two original cancelled cheques is marked as Exh.P-1/14 (Collectively.) (In view of averments in paragraph 14 of Exh.P-1/1).
17. The document at Sr.No. 13 being plaintiff's letter dated 2-06- 2008 along with Postal receipts is marked as Exh.P-1/15. (In view of averments in paragraph 15 of Exh.P-1/1).
18. The document at Sr.No.15 being a letter dated 23-06-2008 addressed by Advocate Ashok Dhanuka for plaintiffs is marked as Exh.P-1/16. (In view of averments in paragraph 17 of Exh.P-1/1).
19. The document at Sr.No.16 being a letter dated 8-07-2008 along with postal receipts addressed by the plaintiffs to the Advocate Shri Ashok Dhanuka is marked as Exh.P-1/17. (In view of averments in paragraph 18 of Exh.P-1/1).
20. The document at Sr.No.18 being a letter dated 8-07-2008 along with postal receipts addressed by the plaintiffs is marked as Exh.P- 1/18. (In view of averments in paragraph 20 of Exh.P-1/1).
21. The document at Sr.No.19 is marked as Exh.P-1/19, for identification.
22. The document at Sr.No.20 being the notice of Lis Pendence dated 18-09-2008 registered with Registrar of Assurances, Mumbai Sub-urban District is marked as Exh.P-1/20.
Shraddha Talekar PS
::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 05:06:40 :::
5/7 13-s-2576-2008.doc
Further examination chief is completed.
23. The learned counsel for defendant Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the defendants do not intend to rely upon any document in support of their defence.
24. By consent, Ms.Aseem Naphade, an Advocate practicing in this Court is appointed as a Commissioner and is requested to record the cross-examination of the plaintiff's first witness within a period six weeks.
(a) The Commissioner is at liberty to exercise discretion under Order XVIII rule 4(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to note the demeanour of the witnesses where necessary.
(b) All cross-examination shall be conducted strictly in question and answer form.
(c) The Commissioner will also be at liberty to direct that the whole or any part of the cross-
examination should be video recorded for later reference of the Court. Should that be done, the original audio visual recording will be submitted Shraddha Talekar PS ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 05:06:40 ::: 6/7 13-s-2576-2008.doc along with the Commissioner's Report to the Registry.
(d) Liberty to the parties as also to the Commissioner to apply in case of difficulty.
(e) All re-examination will be conducted only in Court.
(f) Costs of the commission shall be borne equally by the parties.
(g) Parties shall also pay costs of Rs.500/- per hearing to the Court Clerk who attends the Commission with Court Papers. This is required since these clerks attend the commission in addition to their duties and outside their normal working hours.
(h) The Commissioner is not to permit any application for adjournment on dates previously fixed, except where absolutely unavoidable. Counsel's inconvenience or unavailability does not constitute such unavoidability.
25. Stand over to 20th April 2020.
Shraddha Talekar PS ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 05:06:40 ::: 7/7 13-s-2576-2008.doc [ N.J. JAMADAR, J. ] Shraddha Talekar PS ::: Uploaded on - 11/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 05:06:40 :::