Gujarat High Court
Shivajibhai vs Shayad on 4 August, 2010
Author: Anant S. Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/222/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 222 of 2010
=============================================
SHIVAJIBHAI
CHEMTABHAI GAMIT - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SHAYAD
AHMED ICROMOHDDIN & 2 - Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance
:
MR NV GANDHI for Petitioner(s)
: 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR NM KAPADIA for
Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
UNSERVED-EXPIRED (N) for Respondent(s) :
3,
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 04/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner [original plaintiff] against the order dated 10.12.2009 passed below Exh.17 in R.C.S. No.11 of 2001 by learned Additional Civil Judge, Vyara, by which, the application of the plaintiff to allow the documents to be taken on record and exhibit the same, came to be rejected.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [ AIR 2001 SC 1158] and submits that the documents in question, there was no statutory provisions but the same were not registered under the Registration Act and, therefore, the learned Judge could have followed the procedure as laid down in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (supra) and should have passed the order accordingly.
3. Mr. Kapadia, learned advocate for the respondent [original defendant] is unable to dispute the law laid down by the Apex in the aforementioned case.
4. Considering the aforesaid submissions, decision of the Apex Court and the nature of documents sought to be exhibited by the plaintiff, I am of the opinion that the trial court should have followed the procedure as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (supra) and by giving tentative markings the same could have been considered at appropriate stage of proceedings.
5. In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside with a direction to the trial court to tentatively mark the documents in question as per the procedure laid down in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (supra).
6. This petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
[ANANT S. DAVE, J.] //smita// Top