Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1581620/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15816 of 2008
=====================================================
VIJENDRA
P SHARMA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GURUCHARAN
SINGH & 8 - Respondent(s)
=====================================================
Appearance :
MR
DEEP D VYAS for Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
9.
=====================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 29/12/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
petitioner by this petition, has challenged the order dated
17.10.2008 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner on an
application of the petitioner for interrogatories has been dismissed.
2. Heard
Mr. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The
contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that there is
already an order dated 22.7.2008 of the Assistant Charity
Commissioner below Exhibit 7 directing production of the original
documents and therefore, if the opponents have produced the alleged
true copies on the ground that the original documents are lost, it
was required for the Assistant Charity Commissioner to order for
interrogatory. Mr. Vyas, learned counsel also submitted that as per
the petitioner, the fraud is played inasmuch as original resolutions
or the book are not produced and so-called true copy is produced for
supporting the case of the change report. Therefore, production of
the original documents will be of the vital importance for the case
before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, as was not produced, the
application was made by the petitioner, which has been dismissed
without hearing the petitioner. The impugned order would cause
prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court may interfere.
4. Having
considered above, it deserves to be recorded that it is an admitted
position that the matter is at the stage, where the evidence of the
party is yet to be led and right of cross-examination is also
available to the petitioner to any affidavit filed in support of the
change report. If there is already an order and the original is not
produced on account of non-availability of the original record and
true copy is produced, such production of true copy can be testified
the cross-examination by the petitioner by putting question to the
witness/es and such would include the question for interrogation.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the right of the petitioner is
prejudiced, on the ground as sought to be canvassed. Further the
petitioner did not move the application for implementation of the
order dated 22.7.2008 or any consequence thereof. but the
petitioner’s application was for interrogation, which can be
considered by putting question to the witnesses at the time of
cross-examination.
5. Ultimately,
it will be for the Assistant Commissioner to appreciate the evidence
as may be available on record and to permit the production of the
original record and/or the secondary evidence, after taking into
consideration evidentory value of any documents.
6. In
any case, as the matter is at very interim stage, when the petitioner
has right of cross-examination, it cannot be said that any serious
prejudice will be caused to the petitioner on the ground as sought to
be canvassed.
7. Hence,
no case is made out for interference at this stage. Therefore,
dismissed.
(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)
ynvyas
Top