Bombay High Court
Shri. Shashikant Mhalu Pankar vs Smt. Shiraj Kurus Bastani And Anr on 3 September, 2024
2024:BHC-AS:35521
Sonali Mane 5-WP-13872-2022.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13872 OF 2022
Shri. Shashikant Mhalu Pankar ... Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Shiraj Kurus Bastani And Anr. ... Respondents
Mr. Mohanish S. Ghatge a/w Mr. Dikshak Soni for the Petitioner.
Mr. Shivaji Thorat for the Respondent No.2.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 3 SEPTEMBER 2024.
P.C. :
1) This Petition challenges Order dated 17 August 2022
passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court to the limited extent of setting aside the observations of the Trial Court regarding admission of documents at Serial Nos. 2 and 3 filed alongwith the list at Exhibit 35-A (which were marked at Exhibit 91 and 92).
2) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for parties.
3) It appears that Plaintiff has produced two documents viz. photocopy of handwritten letter (unsigned) and rent receipt and wants ___Page No.1 of 3___ MANE SONALI 3 September 2024 DILIP Digitally signed by MANE SONALI DILIP Date: 2024.09.04 11:11:42 +0530 ::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2024 09:17:43 ::: Sonali Mane 5-WP-13872-2022.docx to have the said documents exhibited and read in evidence. Perusal of the written statement filed by Defendant No. 1 would indicate that in paragraph 2 thereof, she had expressly admitted not only creation and issuance of the rent receipt but also handing over photocopy thereof to the Plaintiff. Thus, Defendant No.1 specifically admits genuineness of the rent receipt dated 1 August 2011 and also the fact that photocopy thereof was handed over to Plaintiff. This very photocopy is sought to be exhibited by Plaintiff. Since the author of the document does not dispute existence and contents of the said document, I do not see any reason why photocopy of the said rent receipt cannot be exhibited.
4) So far as the handwritten unsigned letter is concerned, the existence and contents thereof are again admitted by Defendant No. 1 in paragraph 5 of her reply to the application at Exhibit 27. In paragraph 5 of the said reply, she has contended as under:
"5. With reference to paragraph 8, I say that when Plaintiff had approached as stated above, I had told him to give in writing about the payment of arrears of rent due according to him and on verification of his claim of tenancy and the previous rent receipts from him, I would take appropriate steps regarding acceptance of rent and issue of rent receipts. Since Plaintiff submitted that he does not know to write in English, I may give him draft of letter, which in good faith and to help him, I gave it to the Plaintiff as stated above, the Plaintiff thereafter never approached me either to settle his claim of tenancy of suit premises or to pay rent in respect thereof."
Thus, the factum of Defendant No. 1 landlady creating the handwritten document in her own handwriting is proved. It appears that the original of the said handwriting is sought to be produced and proved in evidence. Since the author of the said handwritten letter does not ___Page No.2 of 3___ 3 September 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2024 09:17:43 ::: Sonali Mane 5-WP-13872-2022.docx dispute existence and contents of the said letter, I do not see any reason why the said document cannot be exhibited and read in evidence.
5) The Appellate Bench has palpably erred in ignoring specific admissions given by the author in respect of both the documents in the written statement and in the reply filed to application at Exhibit 27. The Order passed by the Appellate Bench directing de-exhibition of Exhibits 91 and 92 is thus unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
6) Accordingly, Order dated 17 August 2022 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in Revision Application No. 136 of 2021 is set aside to the extent of the de-exhibition of documents which were already marked at Exhibits 91 and 92. The said documents shall stand re-exhibited as Exhibits 91 and 92 for the purpose of being read in evidence. However, it is clarified that the relevancy of the said documents with regard to the contesting claims of the parties is kept open to be decided at the time of final hearing of the suit.
7) With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] ___Page No.3 of 3___ 3 September 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2024 09:17:43 :::