Order 1

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: ..1.. Order in Exh.59 in S.C.Suit 2325/2018
MHCC010078742018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
ORDER BELOW EXH.59
IN
S.C.SUIT NO. 2325 OF 2018
Mr. John Philip Crasto ...Plaintiff.
Versus
Mr. Sylvester Peter Crasto ...Defendant.
Appearance:
Adv. Rakesh Pandey a/w Ms. Savina Crasto for the Plaintiff.
Adv. Rohan Sawant for Defendant.
CORAM : SMT. A.K.MANDAVGADE
AD-HOC JUDGE, (C.R.NO.62)
DATE : 21.08.2026
ORAL ORDER
(Dictated in open Court)
Present application is filed by the defendant for taking
certified copies in lieu of xerox copies annexed to the evidence affidavit
on record. As per contention of the defendant, he has filed evidence
affidavit on record alongwith documents. However document i.e. copy
of plaint in suit filed before Small Causes Court and decree dated
15/02/2016 were xerox copies. Certified copies thereof were not
available with the defendant. Now the defendant has obtained certified
-- 1 of 5 --
..2.. Order in Exh.59 in S.C.Suit 2325/2018
copies, hence he has prayed to grant permission to produce the
documents on record.
2. As per reply filed by the plaintiff the application is not
tenable. The application is filed to cure fatal defects in the evidence of
the defendant. When the suit is fixed for cross-examination the other
side cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna. This court has already
discarded xerox copies. By filing this application the defendant wants to
recall that order without following due procedure. In fact the defendant
should have filed certified copies alongwith affidavit. The defendant has
not explained why certified copies were not produced earlier on record.
Without seeking leave of the court the defendant has deliberately
annexed secondary evidence. If the defendant is allowed to file the
documents on record after filing his evidence affidavit then it will cause
prejudice to the plaintiff. The law mandates production of original
documents at or before settlement of issues. Hence he has prayed for
rejection of application.
3. Heard both the sides.
4. Record shows that the defendant has filed evidence
affidavit on 31/01/2026 alongwith list of documents Exh.55. The list of
documents shows that xerox copies of the certified copies which the
defendant wants to take on record, were filed with the list. As per
statement of admission and denial filed by the plaintiff he has admitted
existence of the suit. However as per the say, the document relied upon
is incomplete and does not constitute complete/certified record. Hence
copy of plaint was not exhibited. So far as copy of decree is concern that
is admitted by the plaintiff, hence it is marked Exh.57. Thus from the
-- 2 of 5 --
..3.. Order in Exh.59 in S.C.Suit 2325/2018
record it is clear that copy of decree of which certified copy is filed with
this application is already admitted by the plaintiff and is marked
exhibit. However that is not certified copy, hence if permission is
granted to produce certified copy of the decree on record then no
prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff. So far as objection of the
plaintiff for production of certified copy of plaint is concerned from his
statement of admission and denial it becomes clear that existence of the
suit is not denied. Copy of the plaint was already filed with evidence
affidavit. Hence argument on behalf of the plaintiff that if at this stage
permission is granted to produce the document then it will affect his
line of cross-examination, is not acceptable. Another objection raised by
the plaintiff is that the defendant should have filed notice of motion for
production of documents. On inquiry regarding the rules, learned
advocate for the plaintiff pointed out that Rule 187 of Bombay City Civil
& Sessions Court Rules, 1948 says that applications for injunction,
receivers and other interim reliefs in a cause shall be made by notice of
motion. However Rule 187 of Bombay City Civil & Sessions Court Rules,
1948 falls under Chapter 18, which deals with Motions – Injunctions.
There is no specific provision barring the court from taking the
documents on record except by way of notice of motion. Xerox copy of
the plaint of which certified copy is filed with present application is
already filed on record. The suit is pending since 2018, the parties are
Senior citizens. Evidence affidavit of defendant is filed in the month
January 2026, however yet his cross-examination has not commenced.
In such situation, if permission is granted for taking the documents on
record then I am of the view that no prejudice will caused to any of the
parties. Hence, I pass following order :-
-- 3 of 5 --
..4.. Order in Exh.59 in S.C.Suit 2325/2018
ORDER
1. The Application Exh.59 is allowed.
2. The certified copies of the plaint and decree dated
15/02/2016 filed by the defendant is taken on
record. It be marked exhibit.
(Smt. A.K.Mandavgade)
Ad-hoc Judge
City Civil Court,
Date : 21.08.2026 Gr. Mumbai.
Pronounced on : 21.08.2026
Directly dictated on comp : 21.08.2026
Typed on : 21.08.2026
Checked & Signed on : 21.08.2026
-- 4 of 5 --
..5.. Order in Exh.59 in S.C.Suit 2325/2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Name of Stenographer
Mrs. Manisha S. Putta
(Stenographer Grade-I)
21.08.2026 5.30 PM
Name of the Judge (With C.R. No.) HHJ Smt. A.K.Mandavgade
(C.R.No. 62)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGEMENT
/ORDER
21.08.2026
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by P.O. on 21.08.2026
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded on 21.08.2026
-- 5 of 5 --