Bombay High Court
MADHUKAR VIKRAM KALAL.versusCHANDULAL RAMDAS GURAV.
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- ARUN R PEDNEKER
Holding
The trial court did not err; the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
Madhukar Vikram Kalal filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Talode, which rejected his applications for an adjournment and for a summons to the Registrar of Nandurbar to produce the original sale deed in Civil Suit No. 17/1988. The trial court held the suit was already old, issues were framed and the petitioner could have obtained the deed, and it also rejected the summons because no original application for a certified copy had been produced. The High Court examined whether there was any error in those findings. Finding that the petitioner had ample time to obtain the deed and that the trial court’s reasoning was sound, the Court held there was no error. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for adjournment in the pending civil suit
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to issue a summons to the Registrar for production of the original sale deed
Subjects
- writ petition
- civil procedure
- adjournment
- production of documents
- stay of suit
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:9957
WP 2883/1997
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
31 WRIT PETITION NO. 2883 OF 1997
MADHUKAR VIKRAM KALAL.
VERSUS
CHANDULAL RAMDAS GURAV.
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Girish Rane h/f. Mr. C.R. Deshpande
Advocate for Respondents 1A, 1C & 1D : Mr. R.D. Sanap
...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
Dated : March 09, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Heard.
2. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner impugns the orders
dated 28.10.1994 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division,
Talode, Dist. Dhule, rejecting the application Exh. 62 filed by the
petitioner for adjournment and application Exh. 63 filed by the petitioner
for issuing summons to Registrar, Nandurbar Division, Nandurbar to
produce the original sale deed in Regular Civil Suit No. 17/1988. This
Court by order dated 13.12.1994 has stayed the suit.
3. The learned trial court rejected the application, Exh. 62 filed for
adjournment on the ground that suit was already old, issues were framed
and it was possible for the petitioner to call original sale deed from
concerned office and he has not received it during last six years till the
WP 2883/1997
2
date of passing of impugned order. The application Exh. 63 was rejected
on the ground that till the date of impugned order original application for
certified copy of the sale deed was not produced.
4. Substantial time has passed since the suit is stayed. If the petitioner
had the sale deed, he could have produced it by now. I do not find any
error in the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court. The
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by now he may be having
the certified copy of the original sale deed. The suit to be proceeded in
accordance with law.
5. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…