Bombay High Court
DATTATRAYA NATHA NIMSEversusKANTABAI RANU NIMSE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that a writ petition cannot be entertained on mere apprehension and allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to file an appropriate application later.
Summary
The petitioner, Dattatraya Natha Nimse, challenged an order (Exhibit 94) in Civil Suit No. 255 of 2023 that allowed the plaintiff to produce a list of documents (Exhibit 95) including public documents and relinquishment deeds, some of which were marked for reference only. The petitioner argued that the court might consider these documents while deciding the suit, despite his concession to exhibit them merely for reference. The writ petition was filed solely on the basis of apprehension that the documents would influence the final order. The High Court held that it would not pass any order on mere apprehension and permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition, granting liberty to file a proper application if needed. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate basis for entertaining a writ petition challenging the production of documents in a civil suit?
- Can a writ petition be entertained on the ground of mere apprehension that the lower court may consider certain documents?
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 74
Subjects
- writ petition
- document production
- evidence
- apprehension
- withdrawal
- civil suit
- Section 74
- Evidence Act
Judgment
1 935wp13377.26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
935 WRIT PETITION NO. 13377 OF 2026
DATTATRAYA NATHA NIMSE
VERSUS
KANTABAI RANU NIMSE AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Palod Lalitkumar Bansilal
…
CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : 30.09.2026
PER COURT :
1. The petitioner is raising an objection to the order Exhibit 94,
passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 255 of 2023, dated 17.08.2026 by the 3 rd
Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmednagar. It is the contention of the
petitioner that an application has been filed by the Original Plaintiff for
production of documents along with list of documents Exhibit 95. This
application has been allowed in the interest of justice and fair trial by
observing that the documents in the list Exhibit 95 at Sr. No. 1 is a
public document and in view of Section 74 of the Evidence Act, the
documents were marked as Exhibits 101 to 104. So far as the documents
at Sr. No. 5 and 6 are relinquishment deeds is concerned, defendant No.
5 had conceded that the document at Sr. No. 5 may be exhibited only for
the purpose of reference and not for other purpose. Since there is no
pleading about it, even that document has been marked as Exhibit 105
and accordingly the application is disposed of.
2 935wp13377.26.odt
2. Now the petitioner is taking exception to the said order on
the ground that he has conceded for exhibiting the document for
reference purpose and the Court is likely to take into consideration the
aforementioned documents while passing the order as the evidence is
complete and after the arguments of both the parties were concluded the
aforementioned application has been filed.
3. The Writ Petition has been filed only on the basis of
apprehension. Since this Court is not inclined to pass order on the basis
of apprehension, the learned Advocate for the petitioner seeks
withdrawal of the Writ Petition with liberty to file appropriate application
before the Court if occasion arises.
4. The Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty as
prayed for.
( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. )
Mahajansb/
Checking your session…