Bombay High Court

BAPU BABU SHINDE (SINCE DEC. THR. LRS.) AND ORS.versusANIL RAMCHANDRA JARAG AND ANR.

Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The order rejecting the application for a witness summons was not perverse or illegal, and the petition was dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners sought a witness summons to compel the Collector to produce revenue records, specifically 7/12 extracts, alleging that their name had been removed from the record. The respondents had filed a possession suit (RCS No. 265 of 2016) and the petitioners' application for the summons (Exhibit‑81) was rejected on 15‑02‑2025. The petitioners argued that summoning the Tahsildar was necessary to explain the deletion of their name. The Court examined whether the rejection of the summons was perverse or illegal and considered the appropriateness of such a summons at this stage of the pending suit. Finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and noting that certified copies of the records could be made available, the Court dismissed the petition. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the order rejecting the application for issuance of a witness summons to produce revenue records is perverse, illegal, or violative of procedural law.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compel the Tahsildar/Collector to produce the 7/12 extracts before the court.

Subjects

witness summons
revenue record
7/12 extract
civil appellate jurisdiction
petition dismissed
procedural law

Judgment

                                                    108-WP-13107-2025 (C).doc




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 13107 OF 2025

Bapu Babu Shinde (since Dec. Thr. Lrs.) And Ors.                ...Petitioners
      Versus
Anil Ramchandra Jarag And Anr.                                ...Respondents

                                   …..
Adv. Shantanu Patil a/w Adv. Ashirwad Kolekar i/b Adv. Prithviraj
Raorane, Advocate for Petitioners.
Adv. Aditya S. Raktade a/w Adv. Ajit S. Jagtap a/w Adv. Viraj V. Patil,
Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, learned AGP for the Respondents-State.
                                   …..


                                    CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                                    DATE     : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

P.C. :

           Heard.

2.         The petition is directed against order dated 16.09.2025 passed

below Exhibit - 81 rejecting application for issuing witness summons for

producing record.

3.         The respondent has filed RCS No. 265 of 2016 for possession.

Plaintiff's evidence is over. The petitioner - defendant had filed

application at Exhibit - 75 seeking witness summons to Collector to

bring record. It was rejected on 15.02.2025. Application Exhibit - 81 is




     ZIP                                                             1 of 2
                                                       108-WP-13107-2025 (C).doc


filed to issue witness summons to produce the documents, which is

rejected by the impugned order.

4.         The petitioner wants the revenue record to be produced before

court and especially 7/12 extracts. It is submitted that initially his name

was appearing, but thereafter it was excluded. It is contended that if the

Tahsildar is summoned, then explanation can be sought from him as to

how the name of the petitioner is excluded or deleted.

5.         It would be the purport of issuing witness summons either for

production of documents or giving oral evidence. It is rightly observed

by learned Judge that the certified copies can be made available.

Application Exhibit - 81 is resorted to for roving enquiry as to how the

petitioner's name is deleted from the record. This would not be proper

procedure at this stage. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the

impugned order. I cannot be oblivious of the fact that the suit of 2016 is

still awaiting final conclusion.

6.         The parties cannot solely depend upon the officers to corroborate

their claim. If the proper care is taken, then the petitioner would have

got knowledge about the circumstances in which name is being deleted.

7.         I find no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the present petition

stands dismissed.

                                                [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]




     ZIP                                                                2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…