PREMA S NADAR Vs. NAVNITLAL TULSIDAS SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TODAY this matter is not on board for final hearing but with consent of parties heard the matter finally.

(2.) BY this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioners challenge the order dated 4.12.1996 passed by the division bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in appeal no.189 of 1996. That appeal was filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners urged before me that the agreement dated 16.12.1972 between the husband of the petitioner no.1 by name Sadashiv Nadar and the landlord was handed over to one advocate Shri Joshi who was representing the said Shri Sadashiv Nadar. However, the said Shri Joshi didn't return them the agreement as he was colluding with the respondents and therefore that agreement could not be produced on record. In the submission of the learned counsel however, in the notice dated 27.4.1992 issued to the advocate by Sadashiv Nadar, it is specifically stated that the agreement was handed over to the lawyer. However, the said lawyer has refused to hand over the papers back to the husband of the petitioner no.1. In the submission of the learned counsel therefore the petitioners had established the existence of the agreement dated 16.12.1972.