Order 1

Pdf Text: C. C. No. : 95 /DV/2018 ~1~
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
66TH COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
C. C. No. : 95 /DV/2018.
Sheetal Vijay Kumar Hamilapurkar. … Applicant.
V/s.
Vijay Kumar Manikrao Hamilapurkar.
& 2 Ors.
… Respondents.
ORDER BELOW (EXH.13 )
Read the application, say of other side, at (Exh.
14). Heard Ld. Counsels for both side, at length.
2. It reveals that, respondent No. 1 has made this
application for bringing additional documents on record. It is
his submission that, prayed documents are necessary to be
produced on record, for adjudication of proceeding. By virtue
of it the dispute raised at the time of hearing interim
application. Therefore, it is relevant to respondent to produce
on record the said documents, therefore, prayed for said
documents.
3. Other side strongly objected for the same,
submitted that, application is at initial stage, in order to
prolong the matter respondent filed this application. Further
applicant is denied contents of documents, prayed to reject the
same.
-- 1 of 2 --
C. C. No. : 95 /DV/2018 ~2~
4. If considered submissions made by Ld. Counsels
for both parties and the fact the stage is for passing order
below interim application filed by applicant and latter on
respondent has made this application for producing
documents on record. It is not disputed fact that, applications
were filed under various provision of Domestic Violence Act
which is quasi civil and quasi criminal. Furthermore, court
can lay its own procedure, so as to decide case on merit.
5. If considered this fact and legal position, I am of
view that the hearing is not begun, it is an initial stage of
proceeding and matter listed for passing order below (Exh.5).
It will not cause any prejudice to other side, if prayer is
considered. Hence, prayer made by the respondent is
required to be allowed, hence, it is allowed.
Mumbai.
Dated : 28/03/2019.
SRD.
Sd/
(R. M. Nerlikar)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
66th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
-- 2 of 2 --