CHANDRESHBHAI DHANRAJBHAI JETHANI Vs. MIHIRBHAI BHIKHABHAI VIRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner - original plaintiff by challenging the impugned order dtd. 12/3/2021 passed below Exh.76 application in Special Civil Suit No.14 of 2009 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gondal, whereby the trial court has rejected to exhibit some of the applications, which was sought to be exhibited.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as such that the petitioner had preferred a Special Civil Suit No.14/2009 against the respondents before the Learned Principle Senior Civil Judge, Gondal praying for specific performance of agreement to sell dtd. 11/10/2005 for the immovable properties mentioned in the plaint (Exh-1) for a total consideration of Rs.25,00,000.00. The petitioner paid an earnest money of Rs.2,00,000.00 to the Respondent no. 1 through a cheque drawn on R.C.C. Bank bearing no. 86325 dtd. 05/10/2005. The petitioner filed an affidavit in examination-in-chief dtd. 19/07/2019 below exh-75 stating in detail factual narration and referring to the documentary evidences produced. It is stated on oath that original agreement to sell dtd. 11/10/2005 is not produced as such agreement to sell along with other documents were lost between Yagnik Road to Jubilee Chowk and the said incident of original documents getting lost were advertised by the petitioner in daily newspaper 'Akila' on 20/02/2009. The petitioner preferred an application dtd. 19/07/2019 below exh-76 to exhibit certain documents as mentioned in the said application, which are only marked and not exhibited. In the said application, it is again factually narrated as to why certain documents are produced by way of secondary evidence against primary evidence. However, the trail court by order dtd. 12/03/2021 below exh-76 refused to exhibit documents marked as 74/1, 74/2, 74/3, 74/13, 74/33, 74/34, 74/38, 74/39 and allowed other documents being marked as 74/4 to 74/12 and 74/14 to 74/32 along with 74/35 to 74/37 to be exhibited subject to proving of such documents. Hence, the present petition is preferred.

(3.) Heard Mr. Mihir Joshi, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Saurabh G. Amin, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vimal Patel, the learned counsel appearing for VMP Legal for the respondents.