Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion records the cross-examination of the plaintiff's first witness, Ranjan B. Sawant (PW-1), in a matter involving disputed tenancy and leave and license agreements. The defendants' counsel questioned PW-1 regarding the existence and production of a Leave and License Agreement referred to in the plaintiff's answers to interrogatories. PW-1 admitted to misplacing the Leave and License Agreement and denied allegations of giving false evidence. PW-1 also tendered a Tenancy Agreement dated 12th January 2007 as Exhibit D-1. The cross-examination was concluded, and the matter was adjourned for further evidence from the plaintiff's second witness and for marking of documents.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recorded the evidence of PW-1 in a question and answer format, focusing on the existence and production of the Leave and License Agreement. The witness acknowledged the agreement was misplaced but denied giving false evidence. The court admitted the Tenancy Agreement as evidence. The reasoning reflects the court's procedural approach to fact-finding through witness examination and document admission, without further legal analysis.

Holding and Implications

The cross-examination of PW-1 is closed and the Tenancy Agreement is admitted as Exhibit D-1. The court scheduled the next hearing for the plaintiff's second witness and further document marking. There are no broader legal implications or precedents established by this order; it primarily advances the procedural progress of the case.

    Bhagirathi C. Kale v. Aruna Ramesh Pawar

    K.R Shriram, J.

    Name:Ranjan B. Sawant (PW-1)Age:52 yearsOccupation:ServiceAddress:B-404, Tulsirai Vihar CHS, Mahatma Phule Road, Vishnu Nagar, Dombivh (West), Thane-421 202.

    1. Mr. Khandre, counsel for the defendants states that though he has received the agreement that is referred to in answers to question no. 126 read with question no. 127, he had written to the plaintiff to provide copy of the Leave and License Agreement which is referred to in question no. 122. Mr. Khandre further states that they have not received copy of any Leave and License Agreement. Mr. Kamat, counsel for the plaintiff states that they do not have any Leave and License Agreement at all. PW-1 also confirms the same and states that he does not have any Leave and License Agreement.

    2. Further Cross examination of Ranjan B. Sawant (PW-1) by Mr. Nilesh Khandre, for the Caveators on S.A:

    For the sake of convenience, the evidence is recorded in question and answer format.

    Q.136 : Today you are saying that there is no Leave and License Agreement but in answer to question no. 122 you have stated you gave the premises on registered Leave and License. Which is the correct position?

    Answer : I say that the Leave and License Agreement has been misplaced.

    Q.137 : I put it to you that you are giving false evidence?

    Answer : I disagree.

    Q.138 : I put it to you that you are not producing the so called Leave and License Agreement because the license fees that was being paid was far in excess of the amount indicated by you in answer to question no. 123?

    Answer : I disagree.

    Q. 139 : Can you atleast give the name of the licensees with whom you have entered into Leave and License Agreement?

    Answer : I do not know.

    Q. 140 : I put it to you that you are making false statement?

    Answer : I disagree.

    Q. 141 : Did the Testator make a photocopy of the Will after he signed but before the attesting witnesses signed?

    Answer : He did not make any photocopy.

    Q. 142 : I put it to you that the deceased never executed the Will as propounded by the petitioner?

    Answer : I deny.

    Q.143 : I put it to you that you are giving evidence at the behest of your brother-in-law, who is the beneficiary under the Will propounded?

    Answer : I disagree.

    3. PW-1 tenders a copy of the Tenancy Agreement dated 12th January, 2007 between Smt. Bhagirathibai and PW-1 alongwith the receipt of registration, etc. totaling to 12 pages. The same is taken on record and marked ‘Exhibit D-1’.

    4. Cross examination is closed. No re-examination.

    5. Stand over to 6 March, 2017 for receiving the evidence of plaintiffs second witness on record/marking of documents on which date the plaintiffs second witness shall remain present in court.

    6. Mr. Kamat, counsel for the plaintiff states that PW-2 has filed two affidavits. Mr. Khandre, counsel for the defendants states that he has received a copy of only one affidavit. Mr. Kamat states that his instructing advocates will forward a copy of the second affidavit to the defendants’ advocate during the course of today.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Bhagirathi C. Kale v. Aruna Ramesh Pawar
    (Feb 28, 2017)