All Cases

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5479 OF 2008 Mr. L.M.Jamkar ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr. M.L.Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. M.P.Thakur, Addl.G.P. for the Respondents. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & J.H.BHATIA,JJ. DATED: 10th October, 2008. P.C. After an enquiry by the Director of Education of Secondary & Higher Secondary, Maharashtra State, Pune, by his letter dated 24.9.2007 informed the Chief Secretary, Education & Sports Department, to dissolve the society and appoint an administrator. However, on 18.10.2007, he withdrew the letter seeking appointment of an Administrator on the ground that he had received a letter from the society dated 15.10.2007 requesting that the discrepancies shown to the Society had been removed and, therefore, they may be given another opportunity 1 before the matter was decided by the Director. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the letter dated 18.10.2007 on the ground that once the Director had made up his mind after conducting enquiry, he should not have withdraw the letter addressed by him to the Government. We do not feel that the Director of Education has done anything wrong. If some fresh application was made before him by the Society and he was convinced that an opportunity can be given to the Society, he could withdraw the letter earlier written by him in case he has not decided the matter and he will draw his conclusion after giving an opportunity to the Secretary of the Society, who had claimed that he had removed the discrepancies. With these observations, we do not find any merit in this Writ Petition. It is dismissed. However, we direct the Director of Education (Secondary & Higher Secondary) to decide the matter on merits and as expeditiously as possible. (BILAL NAZKI,J.) 2 (J.H.BHATIA,J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1167 OF 2019 = 2019 M/s. Suprim Engineering Versus Petitioner The State of Maharashtra and others WITH Respondents WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.13138 OF 2019 OF 2019 … M/s.Shalaka Polymers Versus Petitioner The State of Maharashtra and others. Respondents Mr. Sachin Gite, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs.S.S.Bhende AGP for Respondent No.1. Ms.G.U.Shinde AGP for State. Adv.Khushbu Marwadi i/b Jay & Co. for the Respondents Nos.2 & 3. CORAM : A.A. SAYED & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATED : 18 OCTOBER 2019 1/1 P.C.: On the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the Petitions are allowed to be withdrawn and to stand disposed of. The letters dated 16-10-2019 of the Petitioners to their Advocate are taken on record. (PRAKASH D. NAIK,J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL STAMP NO. 9038 OF 2019 Mr. Ritesh Dinanath Patni ....Appellant V/S Mers. Rajvinder Karu Ritesh Patni ....Respondent Mr Uday P Warunjikar for Appellant CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL, JJ DATE : 24th April, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 02/05/2019 along with the Civil Appln.(St) No. 12363/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2019 Mr. Ritesh Deenanath Patni ....Appellant V/S Mers. Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni ....Respondent Uday P Warunjikar For Appellant Adv.Sangale a/wRajendrakumar Ramchandra Galange For Respondent CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ DATE : 14th June, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 21/06/2019. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.98 OF 2019 Ritesh Deenanath Patni … Appellant versus Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni … Respondent Mr. Uday Warunjikar, for Appellant. Mr. Sangle i/by R.R.Galange, for Respondent. Mr. Ritesh Patni, appellant present. Ms. Rajvinder Kaur R. Patni, wife present. CORAM: AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE: 21st JUNE, 2019 P.C.: Pursuant to the oral directions, the husband has produced certain documents. Counsel made a statement in his presence that towards arrears of maintenance, he shall pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the wife before 28th June, 2019, directly in her bank account, details of which may be supplied by the Counsel for the wife today itself. Perusal of the documents produced by the husband would show that in his bank account in Indusind Bank, there are sizable credit entries of Rs.10 Lakhs, Rs.30 Lakhs, Rs.1.50 Lakhs, Rs.1.50 Lakhs, Rs.1.60 Lakhs in the recent past all through cheques. This account also shows cash credit of Rs.49,900, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/-. He shall explain the source and the purpose of the deposit of the said amounts in his account on affidavit. Stand over to 28th June, 2019. ( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ) ( AKIL KURESHI, J. )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2019 Ritesh Deenanath Patni .. Appellant Versus Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni .. Respondent ................... Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the Appellant Mr. A.T. Sangle for the Respondent ................... CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : JUNE 28, 2019. P.C.: 1. The appellant - husband and the respondent - wife are present before the Court along with their respective Advocates. The appellant has handed over a demand draft in the sum of Rs. 1 Lakh drawn in favour of the respondent wife towards arrears of maintenance. 2. S.O to 5th July, 2019. On the next date of hearing, the appellant shall pay a further substantial sum towards the remaining arrears and state before us the time within which the entire arrears will be cleared. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ] [ AKIL KURESHI, J ]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.98 OF 2019 Shri Ritesh Deenanath Patni … Appellant Vs Smt.Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni … Respondent Mr.Uday Warunjikar for the Appellant Mr.A.T. Sangle i/b R.R. Galange for the Respondent Appellant present Respondent present CORAM: AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATED: JULY 5, 2019 P.C.: Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we noticed that approximately a sum of Rs.2 lakhs remains to be paid by the husband to the wife as per the judgment of the Family Court by way of maintainance counted upto 31.1.2019. The Respondent husband is present before the Court with his advocate. He has given a demand draft in the sum of Rs.70,000/- in the name of the wife. He states that a further sum of Rs.1,30,000/- would be paid to the wife within 4 weeks from today. The undertaking and the statement are accepted. He shall act accordingly. S.O. to 2.8.2019. (S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.98 OF 2019 Ritesh D. Patni … Appellant Vs Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni … Respondent Mr.U.P. Warunjikar for the Appellant Mr.Rajendrakumar R. Galange for Respondent CORAM: AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATED: AUGUST 2, 2019 P.C.: Pursuant to the order dated 5.7.2019, the advocate appearing for the appellant/husband tenders a demand draft of Rs.1,50,000/- drawn in favour of the respondent – wife. The same is handed over to the respondent/wife. S.O. to 16.8.2019. (S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)

Order - Status 17: 1 / 1 13-FCA-98-2019-A.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2019 Mr.Ritesh Deenanath Patni ... Appellant Versus Mrs.Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni ... Respondent Mr.Uday Warunjikar for the Appellant. Mr.A.T.Sangle i/b. Mr. R.R.Galange for the Respondent. Mr.Ritesh Deenanath Patni - Appellant present in person. Mrs.Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni - Respondent present in person. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 16TH AUGUST, 2019 P.C.: Appeal is admitted. Counsel for the respondent waives notice of admission of the appeal. ( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ) ( AKIL KURESHI, J.)

Order - Status 18: 1-fca98-19.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.98 OF 2019 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.253 OF 2019 Ritesnh D. Patni ...Appellant V/s. Mrs.Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni ...Respondent Ms.Vaishanavi Gjujarathi i/b Dr.U.P. Warunjikar for the Appellant. Ritesnh D. Patni – Appellant present in Court. Mr.A.T. Sangle for the Respondent. Mrs.Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni – Respondent in Court. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA & V.G. BISHT, JJ. DATE : 3RD FEBRUARY, 2021. P.C. :- Learned counsel for both the parties on instructions agree to refer the disputes to mediation of Ms.Gitanjali Prabhu Shetty, a counsel of this Court, C/o Room No.57, Second Floor, Bombay Bar Association. Statement is accepted. Ms.Gitanjali Prabhu Shetty is appointed as a Mediator. Both the parties are directed to co-operate with each other and also with the learned Mediator in submitting the report expeditiously. Learned Mediator shall make an endeavour to submit the report within four weeks from today. Both the parties have agreed to bear the fees and expenses of the learned Mediator, if any, equally. Place the matter on board for directions on 8th March, 2021 along with Mediator's report. Ad-interim relief , if any, to continue till next date. (V.G. BISHT, J.) (R.D. DHANUKA, J.)

Order - Status 20: 13.fca.98.2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.98 OF 2019 Ritesh Dinanath Patni .. Applicant/Org.Appellant Versus Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni .. Respondent WITH BHALERAO Digitally signed by UTKARSH KAKASAHEB BHALERAO Date: 2023.10.20 15:21:31 +0530 UTKARSH KAKASAHEB INTERIM APPLICATION NO.13698 OF 2023 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.98 OF 2019 Ritesh Dinanath Patni .. Applicant/Org.Appellant Versus Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni .. Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.253 OF 2019 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.98 OF 2019 Ritesh Deenanath Patni .. Applicant Versus Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni .. Respondent Page 1 of 7 OCTOBER 19, 2023 Utkarsh Mr.Uday Warunjikar a/w Sumit Kate, Jenish Jain Advocates for the Appellant-Husband. Mr.Amit Jamsandekar i/b High Court Legal Services Committee by appointment letter dated 06.10.2023, Advocates for the Respondent-Wife. Mr.Ritesh D. Patni , Appellant-Husband is present in Court. Mrs.Rajvinder Kaur Ritesh Patni , Respondent-Wife is present in Court. С CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & LLA & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. JJ. D DATE : OCTOBER 19, 2023 23 P. C. 1. In the above matter several orders have been passed. We need not to refer all of them. Suffice it to state that on 4th August, 2023 this Court passed an order in Interim Application No.13698 of 2023, wherein we had recorded the statement of the Respondent-Wife that an amount of Rs.11 Lakhs was received by her in full and final settlement of the disputes between the parties. We had also recorded that out of the sum of Rs.11 Lakhs, an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs has already been deposited in the Registry of this Court. We therefore directed the Registry to permit the Respondent-Wife to unconditionally withdraw this amount with accrued interest thereon, if any. As far as the balance Page 2 of 7 OCTOBER 19, 2023 Utkarsh amount of Rs.6 Lakhs was concerned, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Husband sought time to make the aforesaid payment on or before 30th November, 2023. We were of the opinion that this request was unreasonable and therefore, we directed that the balance amount of Rs.6 Lakhs shall be paid on or before 15th September, 2023 through RTGS to the Respondent-Wife. We had accordingly placed the matter for reporting compliance and further directions on 15th September, 2023. 2. When the matter was called out on 15th September, 2023 it was brought to our attention that the balance amount of Rs.6 Lakhs was also paid to the Respondent-Wife. In other words, the entire amount of Rs.11 Lakhs was paid. However, on 15th September, 2023, the Respondent-Wife made, what we can call, only a mercy plea. She submitted that the amount of Rs.11 Lakhs, and which was paid to the Respondent-Wife, is an amount which is not adequate and some additional amount ought to be paid, over and above the sum of Rs.11 Lakhs. Accordingly on 15th September, 2023, Mr.Warunjikar, the learned advocate appearing for the Husband, submitted that though the Wife cannot be allowed to resile from the commitment made to this Court [as recorded in the order dated 4th August, 2023], to put an end to Page 3 of 7 OCTOBER 19, 2023 Utkarsh the entire dispute between the parties, including all proceedings filed under the Domestic Violence Act and all other proceedings, his client is willing to pay an additional sum of Rs.1 Lakh on or before 13th October, 2023. This offer made by Mr.Warunjikar was graciously accepted by the Respondent-Wife. In other words now the total settlement amount was Rs.12 Lakhs out of which Rs.11 Lakhs were already paid and the balance amount of Rs.1 Lakh was to be paid on or before 13th October, 2023. Since this amount was to be paid on 13th October, 2023 we had kept the above matter on board on the said date and had opined that final orders of a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 including orders of withdrawal of all proceedings filed by the parties against each other, would be passed on the said date. 3. On 13th October, 2023 the matter reached and since the advocate for the Respondent-Wife sought some accommodation, the matter was kept today. 4. Today when the matter is called out, the parties have tendered Consent Terms dated 19th October, 2023. The Consent Terms inter alia provide that, since the parties have been residing separately Page 4 of 7 OCTOBER 19, 2023 since 2014 a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 be passed. The Consent Terms also record that the sum of Rs.12 Lakhs has been paid by the Appellant-Husband to the Respondent-Wife. The Consent Terms also provide that the parties agree that they shall withdraw all the claims/contentions/allegations and proceedings against each other and their family members in different Courts and/or before any police authorities, including the Domestic Violence case at Kurla Court, D.V. Case No.-DVC/157/2016. Though no period has been prescribed in the Consent Terms, both parties have agreed that they shall withdraw their respective proceedings against each other within a period of 15 Days from today. The said statement is accepted as an undertakings given to the Court. 5. The Consent Terms have been signed today by the Appellant-Husband as well as the Respondent-Wife in front of their Advocates. Both, the Appellant-Husband and the Respondent-Wife, are present in Court and have stated that they have signed the Consent Terms after reading and understanding the same as well as the implications thereof. 6. The Consent Terms are also signed by the Advocates for the Appellant and the Advocates for the Respondent. 7. In these circumstances, the Consent Terms dated 19th October, 2023 are taken on record and marked ' X ' for identification. 8. All the undertakings given in the Consent Terms are accepted as undertakings given to the Court. There shall be an order and decree in terms of the Consent Terms and as per the Consent Terms we hereby dissolve the marriage between the Appellant-Husband and the Respondent-Wife solemnized on 9th December, 2012 by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 9. This order read with Consent Terms shall be substituted in place of the order passed by the Family Court and which is impugned in the present Appeal. 10. The Family Court Appeal is accordingly disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 11. In light of the dismissal of the above Family Court Appeal, nothing survives in the above Interim Application as well as in the above Civil Application and the same are disposed of accordingly. 12. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [ M.M. SATHAYE, J.] [ B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] Page 7 of 7 OCTOBER 19, 2023

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 500 OF 2015 Jyotsana Kiran kale. ..Applicant. Versus Shravani Santosh Ambekar and Another. ..Respondents. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 501 OF 2015 Santosh R. Ambekar & Ors. ..Applicants. Versus Shravani Santosh Ambekar and Another. ..Respondents. Ms. Shivangi J. Rajak for the Applicants. Mr. Mayur D. Sapkale for Respondent No.1. Mr. J. P. Yagnik, learned APP for the State. Coram : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. Date : June 15, 2015 . P. C. : The Applicants are seeking to quash FIR against them bearing CR No.72 of 2015 registered with Vikroli Police Station at the instance of Respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under sections 498A and 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Applicants are the accused in the said CR, who have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the said FIR by consent of the original complainant Respondent No.1 herein. Applicant No.1 in APL No. 501 is the husband of Respondent No.1 and rest of the Applicants are his family members. The Applicant in APL is the sister-in-law of Respondent No. 1. Matrimonial disputes between the parties gave rise to the filing of above FIR. The learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of investigation into above FIR, with the help and intervention of family members, friends and well-wishers, the parties amicably settled their differences by way of mutual settlement. Pursuant to the same, present applications are filed for quashing the above FIR, by consent of Respondent No.1 In the present applications filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Respondent No.1 has filed separate affidavits dated 27th May 2015 wherein she has stated that she is not interested in continuing with the said FIR. She has solemnly affirmed that she is withdrawing all the allegations made against the Petitioner in the said FIR and that she has no objection for quashing the proceedings of FIR bearing No. 72 of 2015 registered by her with Vikhroli Police Station against the Applicants. Respondent No.1 is personally present before the Court. On specific query made by us, she submitted that she has made the said affidavits on her own free will, without there being any pressure or undue influence. She has further confirmed that she has no objection for quashing the FIR in question lodged by her against the Applicants for the offence punishable under sections 498A and 406 read with of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Apex Court in B. S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana reported [AIR 2003 SC 1386] has held that in the event of settlement of matrimonial dispute, the FIR under Section 498A can be quashed, even though the said offence is not compoundable in terms of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. The relevant observations of the Apex Court are contained in Paras 14 and 15 which are reproduced herein below: "14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code." Similar view has been taken by the Full Bench of this Court in Abasaheb Yadav Honmane vs. State of Maharashtra [2008(5) LJ.Soft 46]. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaint, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. There is no element of public law involved in the crime. The offence alleged cannot be said to have any impact on the society. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, [(2008) 4 SCC 582], we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision as well as in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014 AIR SCW 2065] we are of the considered view that there is no impediment in quashing the FIR in question. In the circumstances, applications are allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 sought directions to the police to return the jewellery recovered or attached by the police during the course of investigation into above FIR. The learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants in both the applications, after taking instructions from her clients, states that the Applicants have no objection for return of the said jewellery to Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 shall make a proper application to the police for return of jewellery. Upon such application, police will take appropriate decision within a week of its filing. [SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6065 OF 2014 Bhalchandra Mohiniraj Pathak and anr. .. Petitioners Versus Madhyam Varigye Sarvodaya Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit through Chairman and ors. .. Respondents Mr. S. S. Patwardhan, advocate for petitioner. Mr. Bhadrashetti with S. D. Chawan i/by Rahul Sopanrao Kate for respondent. --- CORAM : SMT. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA DATED : 24th JULY, 2014. --- P.C. : 1). Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned advocates, the petition is taken on board for final hearing. 2). The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the correspondence between the Chief Promoter of Society, Madhyam Vargye Sarvodaya Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit, Pune and the Additional Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Housing Development and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, annexed to the order of exemption under Section 19(1)(v) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976, can be said to be public document. 3). There is a dispute pending in the Cooperative Court between the petitioner and the respondents in which one of the disputed facts is the total strength of membership of respondent no.1, Society. According to the respondents, the membership is restricted to 11 persons and the petitioners, on the other hand contend that, there are as many as 141 members of the Society. During the course of the trial, the petitioners sought to produce photocopies of the letter dated 30th August, 1989 from the Additional Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Housing Development and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai to one Shri G. H. Kulkarni, Chief Promoter of respondent no.1, Society and the reply sent by Mr. Kulkarni to the letter alongwith annexures to the letter, in evidence in support of their claim of the membership of the Society by 141 persons. The production of the photocopies as secondary evidence was objected to by the respondents. The objection was upheld by the trial Court and also the lower appellate Court. It was held by the Courts below that, the petitioners have not established the circumstances prescribed for production of secondary evidence and also that the photocopies cannot be said to be secondary evidence. The petitioners had carried the order to this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 6350 of 2011. By the order dated 23rd August, 2012, this court dismissed the petition without going into its merits, with an observation that, since the orders under challenge in the petition were interlocutory in nature, interest of the justice would be served if the writ petition was disposed off with a clarification that in the event the final order in the dispute is adverse to the petitioners, they can, while challenging the final order, raise appropriate pleas and in particular in regard to the rejection by the trial court and the lower appellate court of leave to lead secondary evidence. The petitioners then carried the orders further to the Apex Court. However, the Apex Court also did not interfere with the order of this court. 4). It appears that thereafter one out of 141 members, died and his son, found certified copies of the two documents described above in the papers maintained by the deceased member. The certified copies have been obtained from the Tahashil Office, Pune, where apparently the same were produced in connection with the land dealing. The petitioners, then filed another application for tendering in evidence, the certified copies as the secondary evidence. The trial Court, allowed the application by its order dated 12th March, 2014. Being aggrieved by the order, the respondents had preferred revision to the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai Bench at Pune. The Appellate Court allowed the revision by its order dated 19th April, 2014 which order is challenged by the petitioners in the present petition. 5). The reasons set out in the impugned order by the Appellate Court, for allowing the revision, read as follows :- "29. After perusal of documents, which the respondent no.1 and 2 produce on record at Sr. no.1 to 3, it is evidence that, 'these documents are the annexure attached with the order issued by the public officer'. Even though presuming for the sake of argument that, these documents were attached with the order passed by the public officer, such documents cannot be terms as public documents, the provisions of Section 74 and 76 of Evidence Act doesn't apply in the present set of facts. At the most, said document is termed as the part and parcel of the record maintained by the public officer. Thus, doesn't cover within the meaning of the term public document. After perusing these documents, it is also evident that, the certified copies allegedly availed from the Tahasil Office, Pune whereas as per pleadings of the respondent no.1 & 2, the record is maintained by the Housing Development and Special Assistance Department, Mumbai. It was also responsibility of applicant to explain the proper custody, which the applicants, failed. Thus, on merits also this application deserves to be dismissed. So far as the fourth document is concerned, admittedly same is part and parcel of court record, which can be directly referred. So also it is not explained as to why the fourth document needs to be brought on record, and it is not related to subject matter of dispute." 6). Mr. Bhadrashetti, the learned advocate for the respondent, in seeking to justify the impugned order, submits that the documents in question are essentially correspondence by a private individual with the government department. Therefore, the same cannot fall within the domain of public document as defined in Section 74 of The Indian Evidence Act. His second objection is that, certification of the documents ought to be by the same department that received the document and not by any other department of the Government. The third argument advanced by him is, of the bar by the principle analogous to res-judicata to the second application for production of secondary evidence by the petitioner, the first application having already been decided in the earlier round of proceedings mentioned above. The order in respect thereof has reached finality with the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Apex Court. He submits that, the observation by the Co-operative Tribunal, that application is filed solely for the purpose of delaying the trial is justified and he presses for dismissal of the petition. 7). The respondent cannot be allowed to contend that, the second application by the petitioner was barred by, res-judicata, as both the Courts below have negatived the contention and there is no challenge to the finding. The Co-operative Appellate Tribunal at para-23 of the impugned order, has held that the earlier application had been moved under Section 75(a)(b) of The Indian Evidence Act, whereas, the second application is moved under Section 75(e) of The Indian Evidence Act. The two applications being different applications, there was no applicability of principle analogous to res-judicata. 8). The question, therefore, to be considered now is, can the certified copies issued by one department of the Government i.e. Tahasil Office, Pune in respect of the order issued by another office of the Government i.e. Housing Development and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai alongwith its' annexures, be said to be the public document for the purpose of production in the Court of law. The description of the three documents in question, annexed to the order of exemption, is as follows :- "(a). Letter dated 30/8/1989 issued by Shri. S.V. Yadgikar (Additional Secretary) to Late G.H. Kulkarni. (b). Letter dated 29/9/1989 issued by late G.H. Kulkarni to Housing Development Department. (c). List of Members of Madhaymvargiya Sahakari Griharachna Sanstha Mydt. sent by Late G.H. Kulkarni alongwith his letter dated 29/9/1989." Section 74 of The Indian Evidence Act, which defines the term "public document" reads as under :- "74. Public documents.- The following documents are public documents:- (1) documents forming the acts or records of the acts- (i) of the sovereign authority, (ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country; (2) public records kept [in any State] of private documents." 9). It appears that the Society had earlier filed application under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 seeking exemption under Section 19(1)(v). The three documents sought to be now produced, relate to the application for exemption. It is the correspondence consisting of a letter received from Housing Development and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya and reply sent by Chief Promoter, Society to the said Department alongwith the annexure to the letter. The correspondence, therefore, is with a public officer in connection with his office duties. This correspondence is maintained as record for the purpose of grant of exemption under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. This record forms the basis of grant of exemption. As such, it will have to be treated as part of the documents forming records of the acts of public officer. Further, as noted by the Appellate Court, the three documents are annexures to the order passed by the public officer. Once a certified copy of order of a public officer passed in connection with his public duty is produced, it cannot be severed from its annexures because the document, then would become incomplete. Therefore, the annexures to the order will also have to be held admissible in evidence only to the extent of their existence. The truth of the contents of the documents needs to be separately established. Mr. Patwardhan, the learned Advocate for the petitioner does not dispute this position. 10). As regards the certification of the documents by the department different from the department with whom the correspondence had taken place, in my view the same should not create any difficulty. The document had apparently been produced before the office of Tahashil, Pune in connection with the very land and the document filed with the Tahashil Office has been certified by that office and given to the petitioner. Therefore, custody of the document has been established for the purpose of issuing certified copies. In any case, this aspect is always subject to cross examination. The petition is hence allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 11). At the request of the advocate for the respondent, the order is stayed for a period of four weeks. He makes the statement that the respondent shall not proceed with the trial in the dispute pending before the Cooperative Court during the period of four weeks. (SMT. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)