Interim Order 1

Pdf Text: C. C. No. : 22 /DV/2018 ~1~
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
66TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
C. C. No. : 22 /DV/2018.
Nimisha Sreekumar. … Applicant.
V/s.
Arunkumar Sasikumar & Ors. … Respondents.
ORDER BELOW (EXH.14 )
Read the application, say of other side, at (Exh.
15). Gone through written notes of argument filed by Ld.
Counsel for respondent, at (Exh.16). Heard Ld. Counsels for
both side, at length.
2. It reveals that, respondent has made this
application U/Sec. 91 of Criminal Procedure Code, for seeking
relevant documents. It is submitted by respondent that, the
applicant has adduced her evidence by way of examinationin
chief affidavit and relied upon various documents, which are
required to be produced by the applicant before court,
therefore, prayed to produce bank statement of applicant,
bank statement of her mother namely Suja Sreekumar, bank
statement of her aunt namely Suma @ Ranjinidevi, bank
statement of her maternal uncle namely Subash Kumar, bank
statement of her grand father's brother namely Balakrishnana
Nair M. K. and document pertaining to sale of Ancestral
property bearing Survey No. K 53/5 A1, Serial No.26128 at
-- 1 of 2 --
C. C. No. : 22 /DV/2018 ~2~
Pathanamthitta Village, Sch.N.1/1, Sy.53, so also, receipts
pertaining to owning of 600 grams gold by the applicant.
3. Other side strongly objected for the same,
submitted that, it is noting but an efforts of respondent to
prolong the matter. The applicant has right to rely on
documents and it is not the right of respondent to demand
specific document, prayed to reject the same.
4. If considered submissions made by Ld. Counsels
for both parties and prayer made by the respondent, it appears
that, as applicant relying upon certain documents and
respondent has prayed for production of same documents. It
is settled position of law, one who pleads has to prove the
case, if it is submission of respondent that, as the applicant is
relying on certain documents, it is duty of applicant to
produce and prove the same, also to provide copy of the same
to other side. In view of above discussion prayer made by the
respondent cannot be considered, same is required to be
rejected, hence, it is rejected.
Mumbai.
Dated : 26/03/2019.
SRD.
Sd/
(R. M. Nerlikar)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
66th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 2 --