TULSIDAS YASHWANT BOLIJ AND OTHERSversusKARBHARI GOPAL BOLIJ DIED LRS BABASAHEB KARBHARI BOLIJ AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:10637
                                                1 of 3                    104-WP.10886.2016




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              104 WRIT PETITION NO. 10886 OF 2016

                             TULSIDAS YASHWANT BOLIJ AND OTHERS
                                               VERSUS
                 KARBHARI GOPAL BOLIJ DIED LRS BABASAHEB KARBHARI BOLIJ
                                            AND OTHERS
                                                   ...
                Mr. Sanket S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioners.
                Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State.
                Mr. Vikram R. Dhorde, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                                   ...

                                        CORAM :          SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                        DATE     :       9th MARCH 2026
                P.C.:-

                1.       Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

                2.       By the present petition, the Petitioners are assailing the order

                dated 10.10.2016 passed below Exhibit-143 by the learned Civil Judge,

                Senior Division, Kopargaon in R.C.S. No.24 of 2010, whereby the

                application filed by the Petitioners seeking permission to exhibit two

                documents which are more than 30 years old came to be rejected.


                3.       Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that a R.C.S.

                No.24 of 2010 was filed by the Petitioners seeking specific performance

                and perpetual injunction against the Respondents, wherein they

                tendered their affidavit of examination-in-chief below Exhibit-98.

                During examination-in-chief, they sought to exhibit a lease deed and an

                agreement to sale which were more than 30 years old. The learned

      Tauseef
                                            2 of 3               104-WP.10886.2016




          Trial Court refused to exhibit them, therefore, Petitioners filed

          application below Exhibit-143 seeking to exhibit those documents, but

          the learned Trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that

          presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot

          be invoked because the said presumption is not with regard to the

          contents of the documents, rather it is in respect of execution and

          attestation only. He further submits that the said findings are perverse

          and merely executing the documents does not amount to their proof, it

          is for the parties to prove the same.


          4.        Per contra, Mr. Vikram R. Dhorde, learned Advocate for

          Respondent No.2 support the order passed by learned Trial Court.


          5.        Upon the perusal of the record and the impugned order, it is

          clear that, the Trial Court rejected the said application on the ground

          that it was filed at the fag end of the trial and that when the parties

          had earlier led their evidence, the discretion to raise a presumption

          under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act could not be exercised.


          6.        After hearing the learned Advocate for the Petitioners, I find

          that the documents in question are more than 30 years old. Merely

          permitting such documents to be exhibited under Section 90 of the

          Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not amount to proof of the documents.

          It is for the concerned parties to prove the said documents in


Tauseef
                                           3 of 3             104-WP.10886.2016




          accordance with law and it is for the Trial Court to assess their

          evidentiary value.


          7.        In view thereof, the present petition is allowed. The order

          dated 10.10.2016 passed below Exhibit-143 by the learned Civil Judge,

          Senior Division, Kopargaon in R.C.S. No.24 of 2010 is quashed and set

          aside.

          8.        The lease deed and the agreement to sale dated 29.01.1971

          are permitted to be exhibited.

                                             (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)




Tauseef