Order 2

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: 1
Coram : R. R. Kale,
Judge, C.R. No. 36.
Date : 07/07/2025.
R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 362 of 2022
(CNR No. :- MHSCA3-000716-2022)
Order on List vide Exh. 21 with regard to admissibility of the
documents.
Perused the documents filed by the plaintiff along-with list
vide Exh. 21. The defendants have failed to file their say to the
documents despite the opportunity and therefore, my Ld. Predecessor
was pleased to pass ‘No Say’ order against them on the list vide Exh. 21
dated 17/12/2024. I have gone through the evidence affidavit of P.W. 1
Smt. Sangita Kalpesh Patel filed at Exh. 20.
2. Heard the Ld. Advocate on behalf of plaintiff at length.
3. The document produced at Sr. No. 1 appears to be the
certified copy of the General Power of Attorney dated 25/09/2018 in
R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 306 of 2021. P.W. 1 Sangita (Exh. 20) has stated
about the said document in Para No. 3 of her evidence affidavit.
Considering her evidence about the document, the said document be
exhibited.
4. The document produced at Sr. No. 2 appears to be the copy of
Power of Attorney dated 08/03/2018. The original document is not
produced on record, therefore, said document cannot be exhibited.
Hence, it be marked as Article-X.
5. The document produced at Sr. No. 3 appears to be the
certified copy of Conveyance Deed dated 25/02/1963. The original
document is not produced. P.W. 1 Sangita (Exh. 20) has not stated in
-- 1 of 4 --
2
whose possession the original document is. Further, she has not made
out any case to grant her permission to lead secondary evidence.
Therefore, the document cannot be exhibited. Hence, it be marked as
Article-X1.
6. The document produced at Sr. No. 4 appears to be the
certified copy of the letter issued to Executive Engineer, Zone-II,
Bombay Municipal Corporation. P.W. 1 Sangita (Exh. 20) has not
produced the original letter in the present case. Therefore, said
document cannot be exhibited. Hence, it be marked as Article-X2.
7. The documents produced at Sr. No. 5 and 6 appear to be the
copies of 7/12 extract of Survey No. 288/28 and property card. The
original certified copies of 7/12 extract and property card appeared to
have produced in R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 306 of 2021 by the witness.
Therefore, the certified copies of certified documents cannot be
exhibited. Therefore, these documents be marked as Article-X3
(collectively).
8. The documents produced at Sr. No. 7 appear to be certified
copy of the sanctioned BMC plan dated 13/07/1966, copy of IOD and
copy of letter dated January, 1965. Though P.W. 1 Sangita (Exh. 20) has
stated about these documents in her evidence affidavit, however, she is
not the author of these documents. Moreover, original documents are
not produced, therefore, these documents cannot be exhibited. Hence,
these documents be marked as Article – X4 (collectively).
9. The document produced at Sr. No. 8 appears to be the copy of
order dated 21/09/2018 passed in Chamber Summons No. 1019 of
2018 in L.C. Suit No. 2427 of 2018. It appears that, certified copy of the
order is not produced, therefore, it cannot be exhibited. Hence, it be
marked as Article-X5.
-- 2 of 4 --
3
10. The document produced at Sr. No. 9 appears to be the
certified copy of the certified copy of the order passed by Ld. Deputy
Collector dated 23/01/2020. It appears that, the original certified copy
of the order is not produced on record, therefore, said copy cannot be
exhibited. The witness can produce the original certified copy of the
order which is submitted in R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 306 of 2021.
Therefore, the said document be marked as Article-X6.
11. The document produced at Sr. No. 10 appears to be copy of
the order passed by Hon’ble Apex Grievance Redressal Committee,
Government of Maharashtra dated 02/07/2021. It appears that, the
certified copy of the order is not produced on record, therefore, said
copy cannot be exhibited. Therefore, the said document be marked as
Article-X7.
12. The document produced at Sr. No. 11 appears to be the copy
of order passed by Hon’ble Maharashtra Slum Area (I. C. and R.)
Tribunal, Mumbai dated 27/01/2022. It appears that, the original
certified copy of the order is not produced on record, therefore, said
copy cannot be exhibited. The witness can produce the original certified
copy of the order which is submitted in R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 306 of
2021. Therefore, this document be marked as Article-X8.
13. The document produced at Sr. No. 12 appears to be the office
copy of the letter dated 08/02/2018. Considering evidence of P.W. 1
Sangita (Exh. 20) in respect of the said document as stated in para No.
38 of her evidence affidavit, the said document be exhibited.
14. The documents produced at Sr. No. 13 appear to be certified
copies of the rent receipts produced in R.A.E. & R. Suit No. 306 of 2019.
The original rent receipts are not produced on record. Therefore,
certified copies of the original documents cannot be exhibited as the
-- 3 of 4 --
4
witness is able to produce the original rent receipts. Hence, these
documents be marked as Article-X9(collectively).
15. The document produced at Sr. No. 14 appears to be copy of
the letter issued by the Ld. Deputy Collector. It appears that, office copy
of the letter dated 04/12/2011 is not produced on record. Therefore,
the said document cannot be exhibited. Hence, this document be
marked as Article-X10.
(Matter be kept for cross-examination of the P.W. 1 on next
date.)
(R. R. Kale)
Date : 07/07/2025. Judge, C.R. No. 36.
-- 4 of 4 --