IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 244 OF 2017
SHITAL KRUSHNA DHAKE
VERSUS
KRUSHNA DAGDU DHAKE
Advocate for Applicant : Shri Kulkarni Suvidh S.
Advocate for Respondent : Shri Narwade Narayan B.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: Feb 02, 2018
PER COURT :
Learned warn for a applicant has voiced an confinement that a sequence of this Court antiquated 20.12.2017 as good as this order, would be accessible on a central website of a Bombay High Court and there is a probability that given it would not be a approved duplicate of a order, a hearing Court might insist on producing a approved copy.
I am of a perspective that this confinement is unnoticed given a imitation out of a orders of this Court from a central website has sanctification and a hearing Courts are approaching to cruise a pronounced orders, if they are cited after holding a imitation out from a central website. The pronounced orders are also accessible before a hearing Court from a central website and there can be a opposite corroboration to find out either such an sequence is indeed uploaded to a central website or not. In this backdrop, there is no mistreat if such a imitation out from a central website is placed before this Court.
It is sensitive by a schooled Advocates that, in several cases before several hearing Courts, a schooled Judges insist on prolongation of a approved duplicate of a sequence and they are not prone to cruise a imitation out of an sequence from a central website of a Bombay High Court, as being a arguable document. As celebrated in a foregoing paragraphs, in a eventuality of any doubt in a mind of a schooled Judge, it can be checked from a central website of a Bombay High Court as to either such an sequence has been uploaded or not? Once a sequence is uploaded on a central website, it is a arguable request to be deliberate by a Court before whom it is cited.
Since several lawyers in a Court room have addressed this Court on this common issue, a schooled Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is destined to disseminate this sequence to all a schooled Principal District Judges of a District Courts in Maharashtra, so as to pierce this aspect to a notice of all a schooled Judges operative in a legal districts in this state.
This matter shall mount over to 26.2.2018 and a halt service postulated progressing to continue.
The applicant in this record is during autocracy to pierce anapplication for seeking recalling of a ‘No evidence’ sequence upheld by a schooled Civil Judge (S.D.) Newasa in HMP No.12 of 2014, antiquated 4.1.2018 given a pronounced sequence was upheld yet this Court hadpassed an sequence on 20.12.2017.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
