Bombay High Court

SWATI RANJAN KEER AND ORSversusMANGALAM DEVELOPERS AND ANR.

Decided: 4 March 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: GAURI GODSE

Holding

The High Court disposed the petition, permitting the petitioners to file applications to record heirs, seek condonation of delay, and produce documents in compliance with Section 65, leaving the admissibility issue to the trial court.

Summary

The petitioners, original plaintiffs in a civil suit, challenged the trial court's refusal to admit certain documents tendered through a deceased plaintiff. Since two of the plaintiffs had died, the petitioners sought to bring the heirs and legal representatives on record. The High Court noted that the suit was stayed, preventing the filing of such applications earlier, and directed the petitioners to file applications to record the heirs and seek condonation of delay. It also instructed that any secondary evidence must comply with Section 65 of the Evidence Act and that the trial court may consider the admissibility of the documents at the appropriate stage. Consequently, the writ petition, interim applications, and related civil application were disposed, leaving the substantive evidentiary disputes to be decided by the trial court.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court correctly disallowed the admission of documents tendered through a deceased plaintiff.
Whether the petitioners may bring heirs and legal representatives of deceased plaintiffs on record after the suit was stayed.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to condonation of delay in filing applications to record heirs.
Whether the documents can be admitted as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 65

Subjects

admission of evidence
secondary evidence
Section 65 Evidence Act
heirs and legal representatives
condonation of delay
civil appellate jurisdiction
writ petition

Judgment

21-WP-7873-2017.docx

rrpillai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7873 OF 2017
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 5887 OF 2026

Shri Mohan Krishna Keer and Others … Petitioners
Vs.
Mangalam Developers and Another … Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 264 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 7873 OF 2017

Swati Ranjan Keer and Others … Applicants
In the matter between
Shri Mohan Krishna Keer and Others … Petitioners
Vs.
Mangalam Developers and Another … Respondents

Ms. Bhakti Jogal for the Petitioners/Applicants
Mr. Y. E.Mooman for Respondent No. 1.

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATE : 4th MARCH 2026

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed by the original plaintiffs to

challenge the orders passed by the trial court refusing to

Digitally signed
by RAJESHWARI admit certain documents in evidence sought to be tendered
RAJESHWARI RAMESH
RAMESH PILLAI
PILLAI Date:
2026.03.05
10:39:24 +0530
1/4
21-WP-7873-2017.docx

by the plaintiffs through plaintiff no. 3. During the pendency of

this petition plaintiff nos. 1 and 3 have expired.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that she has

filed applications to bring on record names of heirs and legal

representatives of the deceased petitioners. Copies of the

application are tendered and the same are taken on record.

Since the suit had remained stayed in view of the orders

passed by this court, the plaintiffs were unable to file

application for bringing on record heirs in the trial court. The

documents sought to be produced in evidence were through

evidence of plaintiff no. 3. The evidence of plaintiff no. 3 was

not taken on record and hence no purpose would be served

by considering the issue as to whether the documents sought

to be produced through plaintiff no. 3 were correctly

disallowed by the trial court.

3. If the plaintiffs seeks to produce secondary evidence,

the plaintiffs are required to comply with the required

procedure as contemplated under Section 65 of The

Evidence Act. If any original is produced, the trial court shall

consider and pass appropriate order in accordance with law,

whether the document can be admitted in evidence. If the

2/4
21-WP-7873-2017.docx

documents are to be disallowed, the trial court shall record

reasons for disallowing the admission of the documents in

evidence.

4. The petition is therefore disposed of by passing the

following order :

(a) Petitioner no. 2 and the heirs and legal

representatives of deceased petitioner nos. 1 and 3

are permitted to file applications before the trial court

to bring on record the names of legal heirs and

representatives of plaintiff nos. 1 and 3.

(b) The plaintiffs would be entitled to seek benefit of

the period of pendency of this petition to seek

condonation of delay in filing the application for

bringing on record names of heirs and legal

representatives of the deceased plaintiffs.

affidavit on behalf of the plaintiffs and if any document

is to be produced in evidence, they shall accordingly

take appropriate steps as permissible in law to

produce documents while leading evidence. If any

3/4
21-WP-7873-2017.docx

documents are sought to be produced on behalf of the

plaintiffs the trial court shall consider the same at the

time of recording evidence uninfluenced by the orders

impugned in this petition.

(d) The Writ Petition and Interim Applications (St)

Nos. 5887 of 2026 and Civil Application No. 264 of

2019 are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(e) All the rival contentions of the parties including

the rival contentions on the documents to be produced

on the evidence are kept open to be decided by the

trial court.

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

4/4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…