Bombay High Court
MRUNALINI PRALHAD PATIL AND ANRversusSURYABHAN NANASAHEB DALVI, AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The trial court erred in rejecting the petitioners' applications; the High Court allowed exhibition and proof of the documents and imposed costs on the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, who were parties to a civil suit pending since 2007, sought permission from the trial court to produce and prove certain documents after having filed a closure of evidence. The trial court had earlier allowed secondary evidence but later rejected applications for a witness summons and for exhibition of the documents, citing the closure filing. The High Court held that once the trial court permits production of documents, it must also grant leave to prove them, and that the closure filing cannot be a ground to deny exhibition of public documents. It directed that the documents be marked as evidence based on the petitioners' witness testimony and set a timeline of eight weeks for recording further evidence. The court also imposed costs of Rs.30,000 on the petitioners for their negligent conduct, and ordered the costs to be deposited within four weeks. Consequently, the petition was partly allowed and disposed of with costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the filing of a closure of evidence precludes the trial court from permitting the exhibition and proof of additional documents.
- Whether permission to produce documents under secondary evidence automatically includes permission to prove those documents.
- Whether public documents can be marked as evidence without summoning witnesses from the issuing offices.
- Whether costs can be imposed on a party for negligent conduct in seeking to produce documents after evidence closure.
Subjects
- evidence
- secondary evidence
- document production
- closure of evidence
- public documents
- costs
- civil procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:40176
Megha 22_wp_11605_2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11605 OF 2018
Mrunalini Pralhad Patil and Anr. ...Petitioners
V/s.
Suryabhan Nanasaheb Dalvi and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Dilip Bodake with Mr. Shreeniwas N. Magar for the Petitioners.
Mr. Sanjay Kshirsagar with Mr. K.R. Kamble for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 30 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1) Petitioners are aggrieved by non-grant of permission by the Trial
Court to prove the documents allowed to be produced by order dated 26
August 2015. It appears that by order dated 13 July 2015, Petitioners/
Plaintiffs were granted opportunity to lead secondary evidence by
imposition of costs, even though closure pursis was filed by them on 3
September 2013. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs filed list of documents vide
Application dated 3 August 2015 and sought to tender evidence to prove
the same. The Trial Court allowed the Application partially by order
dated 26 August 2015 by allowing production of documents, but rejected
the prayer for filing of additional/ separate affidavit of evidence. Faced
with this position, the Plaintiffs filed Application at Exhibit-133 seeking
Page No.1 of 3
30 September 2026
Megha 22_wp_11605_2018
issuance of witness summons to the District Collector, Pune for proving
the additional documents. That Application is rejected by order dated 25
January 2016 inter-alia on the ground that the Plaintiffs had already filed
evidence closure pursis.
2) I have heard Mr. Bodke, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners and Mr. Kshirsagar, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and have considered the submissions canvassed
by them.
3) In my view, the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the Application
at Exhibit-133. If filing of evidence closure pursis was to be a reason for
not permitting to prove additional documents, the Trial Court ought not
to have permitted the Plaintiffs to lead secondary evidence by order
dated 13 July 2015 nor ought to have permitted production of documents
by order dated 26 August 2015. Once permission is granted for
production of documents, leave also needs to be granted to prove those
documents.
4) Faced with the above situation, the Plaintiffs applied by filing
Application at Exhibit-145 to exhibit the documents since they are public
documents. Even that Application is rejected by order dated 12
September 2017.
5) For proving the contents of the documents, the Plaintiffs have
filed additional affidavit of Plaintiff No.1. In my view, with a view to
prevent any further delay, the Plaintiffs can be permitted to lead further
evidence of Plaintiff No.2 at Exhibit-118. The Trial Court shall complete
the process of recording further evidence of Plaintiffs’ witness within a
Page No.2 of 3
30 September 2026
Megha 22_wp_11605_2018
period of eight weeks. I have gone through the documents produced
alongwith Exhibits-119 and 137. The documents appear to be
correspondence of office of District Collector and office of Land Records.
With a view to save time in summoning witnesses from both the offices,
it would be appropriate that the said documents can be marked in
evidence based on Plaintiff’s witness’s evidence since they appear to be
public documents. The Suit is pending since the year 2007. If at this stage
leave is granted to the Plaintiffs to summon witnesses from Government
offices, the same would delay the Suit further. In my view, therefore it
would be appropriate to set aside the order dated 12 September 2017 and
permit exhibition of documents filed alongwith lists at Exhibits 119 and
137. However, for the negligent conduct of the Plaintiffs, who sought to
produce those documents only after filing of evidence closure pursis,
costs are required to be imposed on the Petitioners.
6) The Plaintiffs shall pay costs of Rs.30,000/- to the Defendants by
depositing the same in the Trial Court within a period of four weeks with
liberty to the Defendants to withdraw the same. Defendants would by at
liberty to file additional affidavit of evidence if considered necessary in
the light of additional evidence permitted to be produced by the
Plaintiffs.
7) With the above directions, Petition is partly allowed and disposed
of with costs as directed above.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.3 of 3
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 30 September 2026
Date: 03/10/2026 16:13:44
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.