Bombay High Court

Ramling So Rachotii SwamiversusShantveer S/o Ramling Swami and others

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The High Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the trial court’s order refusing permission to lead evidence as the petitioner, being a formal party with no relief sought against him, has no sufficient cause to set aside the evidence‑closing order.

Summary

The petitioner, Ramling, challenged a trial court order dated 15‑12‑2025 that refused his application to lead evidence in a suit filed by Respondent No.4 seeking declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction based on a 27‑12‑2020 will. The petitioner, an attesting witness to the will, was added as a defendant but no relief was claimed against him, and he did not participate in the trial. He later filed an application to set aside the evidence‑closing order, which the trial court rejected. The High Court examined whether it could intervene under its writ jurisdiction to overturn the trial court’s refusal. Finding that the petitioner, as a formal party with no adverse relief sought, had not shown any substantive reason to lead evidence, the Court held it had no jurisdiction to interfere. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can interfere with a trial court's order refusing permission to lead evidence under writ jurisdiction.
Whether the petitioner, who is a formal party but against whom no relief is claimed, has standing to seek setting aside of the evidence‑closing order.

Subjects

writ petition
evidence
civil procedure
declaration of ownership
perpetual injunction
trial court order
jurisdiction
standing

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:15694


                                                   1                     wp 1032.2026.odt

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 949 WRIT PETITION NO.1032 OF 2026

                                      Ramling S/o Rachotii Swami
                                                 VERSUS
                               Shantveer S/o Ramling Swami And Others
                                                     ...
                     Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Sayyed Tauseef Yaseen
                     Advocate for Respondents 1-3 : Mr. K. P. Rodge h/f P.G. Rodge
                     Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. Ajinkya Reddy
                                                     ...

                                         CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                         Dated      : April 08, 2026

                     ORDER :-

                     1.    Present writ petition takes exception to the order dated

                     15.12.2025 passed below Exhibit-1 in R.C.S. No.78 of 2021.

                     Petitioner further raises challenge to the order passed below

                     Exhibit-53 whereby his application seeking permission to lead

                     evidence has been rejected.


                     2.    Respondent no.4 instituted suit seeking declaration of

                     ownership and perpetual injunction. Claim is based on a will

                     dated 27.12.2020. The petitioner appears to be one of the

                     attesting witness on the will and, therefore he is added as

                     defendant no.4. No relief is claimed against the petitioner nor

                     the decree passed in suit would affect his right.
                               2                     wp 1032.2026.odt

3.      In this background, petitioner filed an application below

Exhibit-53 seeking permission to lead evidence. The trial Court

refused to entertain the said application.


4.      Perusal of the reasons recorded in order impugned

depicts that petitioner was the formal party in the suit as no

relief is claimed against him. Petitioner was also aware about

the said fact. He did not participate in the suit. He did not

cross-examine witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff and

defendant nos.1 to 3.     However, suddenly he wake up and

made an application for setting aside the evidence closing

order passed against him and sought permission to lead

evidence. From averments of application, it is not discernible

as to why the petitioner wants to lead the evidence.


5.      In that view of the matter, this court finds no reason to

interfere in the impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Hence, writ petition stands rejected.



                                      ( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. )
                                   ...
AAA/f

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…