Interim Order 7

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: :: 1 ::
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI
(BANDRA BRANCH)
Coram : Mr. N. R. Gajbhiye,
Judge, Court Room No. 33
Date : 28th July, 2026
R. A. E. SUIT NO. 368 of 2023
The plaintiff has filed the documents in R.A.E. Suit No. 347 of 2023.
He had relied on the xerox copies in the present suit. After due
verification by this Court from the original documents in R.A.E. Suit
No. 347 of 2023, the admissibility of these documents are decided as
under:-
Perused the additional evidence on affidavit (Exh. 43) and say
(Exh. 45).
2. Heard the Ld. Advocate for both sides. The plaintiff had filed the
list of documents (Exh. 44).
3. Documents at Sr. No. 1 are the letter dated 29/10/2025 issued
by M/s. Aditya Infrastructure through Ghanshyamgiri S. Goswami
addressed to the plaintiff along-with revised plan. The Ld. Advocate
for the defendant raised the objection that, the said letter does not
come from proper custody. The original revised plan is not produce
before this Court. The said plan belongs to the third party M/s.
Aditya Infrastructure.
The letter addressed to the plaintiff, therefore plaintiff become
the custodian of the said document. Therefore, the contention raised
by the defendant that, the said document is not come from proper
custody does not survive. The said letter is original. Therefore, it is
/home/steno33/1.Judge - N. H. Gajbhiye/Order on admissibility of documents/7. July, 2026/RAE 368 of 2023 - 28-07-2026.odt
-- 1 of 2 --
:: 2 ::
marked as Exhibit – 46. The revised plan accompanied with letter
dated 29/10/2025 addressed to the plaintiff by M/s. Aditya
Infrastructure. Defendant is one of the partner to the said firm. It is
not original revised plan, but it is a xerox copy. Therefore, it is
marked as Article – X1.
4. Document at Sr. No. 2 is the additional undertaking on behalf of
M/s. Aditya Infrastructure. It bears the signature of the partners of
M/s. Aditya Infrastructure. The said document is in respect of the suit
premises regarding the development. The Ld. Advocate for the
defendant raised the objection that, developer is not the party to the
suit.
The said document is original and it bears the signature of the
partners of M/s. Aditya Infrastructure. It was the undertaking signed
by said partnership firm in respect of the suit premises. Therefore, it
is marked as Exhibit – 47.
5. Document at Sr. No. 3 is the additional undertaking on behalf of
Secretary of the plaintiff society. It bears his signature. The said
document is in respect of the suit premises. The Ld. Advocate for the
defendant raised the objection that, the witness is not the author of
the document.
The said document is original and it bears the signature of the
office bearer of the plaintiff society. Therefore, it is marked as
Exhibit – 48.
sd/-
(N. R. Gajbhiye)
Date : 28/07/2026 Judge, C. R. No. 33(B.B.)
/home/steno33/1.Judge - N. H. Gajbhiye/Order on admissibility of documents/7. July, 2026/RAE 368 of 2023 - 28-07-2026.odt
-- 2 of 2 --