DNYANOBA RAMCHANDRA DUKRE AND OTHERSversusVIDYA MAHESH SHINDE AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:46431



                                                       1
                                                                    951 WP 14025 OF 2024

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   951 WRIT PETITION NO. 14025 OF 2024

                          DNYANOBA RAMCHANDRA DUKRE AND OTHERS
                                                VERSUS
                                   VIDYA MAHESH SHINDE AND ANR
                                                   ...
                     Mr. N. D. Kendre, Advocate for the Petitioners
                     Mr. G. J. Kore, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
                                                   …

                                             CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                             DATED : 1st October 2026

                     P.C. :-

                     .         Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2024 passed

                     by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division (Court No.9),

                     Latur on an application at Exhibit 51 in Regular Civil Suit

                     No.710 of 2021, the defendants are before this Court.

                     Considering the short controversy involved in the matter, the

                     petition is heard for final disposal at admission stage.

                     2.        The sum and substance of the case is as below :

                     a.        The present respondents filed the Regular Civil Suit

                     No.710 of 2021 seeking partition and possession of the suit

                     properties. The petitioners/original defendants caused their

                     appearance and disputed the suit. As their defence, the
                               2
                                              951 WP 14025 OF 2024

petitioners raised an objection that certain properties,

particularly a plot out of Gat No.108, Village Arvi Tq. and

Dist. Latur and 50 R land in Gat No.575 are their properties

and cannot be subjected to partition.

b.    Subsequently, issues came to be framed and the parties

offered themselves for evidence. After completion of evidence,

the matter was posted for final arguments. After the plaintiffs

completed    their   final   arguments   on    14.10.2024,     an

application below Exhibit 49 came to be filed by the

petitioners/original defendants on 04.11.2024. By the said

application, permission was sought for production of certain

documents without recording any objection of the plaintiffs.

On the same day, the Trial Court allowed the said application.

c.    Two days thereafter, an application at Exhibit 51 came

to be filed by the petitioners/original defendants. By the said

application, the defendants prayed for recalling the order of

closing their evidence and for permitting them to examine the

witnesses to prove the documents which were allowed to be

produced on application Exhibit 49.

d.    Although the petitioners did not place on record the

reply filed by the plaintiffs opposing the application, the Trial
                               3
                                             951 WP 14025 OF 2024

Court recorded the objection of the plaintiffs and rejected the

said application. While passing the order dated 29.11.2024,

the Trial Court observed that there is no reference to the

documents sought to be proved in the written statement, and

hence it would not be of any avail to allow the defendants to

prove such documents. The Trial Court further observed that

looking to the nature of the documents, the same appear to be

irrelevant to the controversy. The Trial Court further observed

that the application was apparently filed to delay the suit

proceedings and hence taking recourse to Order XIII Rule 3 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, proceeded to reject the

application.

e.    As    against   the   order   dated    29.11.2024,     the

petitioners/original defendants are before this Court.

3.    I have extensively heard both the learned Advocates for

the respective parties.

4.    Mr. N. D. Kendre, learned Advocate for the petitioners

submits that the documents which are sought to be proved are

of vital nature and would go to the root of the controversy

between the parties. He would submit that in the written

statement reference has been made to certain transactions and
                               4
                                             951 WP 14025 OF 2024

hence, the Trial Court has erred in observing that the

documents are neither relevant nor referred to in the written

statement. With this, he prays for allowing the petition.

5.    Mr. G. J. Kore, learned Advocate for the respondents

would support the findings rendered by the Trial Court. It is

further submitted that the documents sought to be proved by

the petitioners are coming from their own custody and there is

no reason as to why the same were produced at such a belated

stage. He further submits that the Trial Court has rightly

observed that the application was merely an attempt to delay

the suit proceedings. With this, he prays for dismissal of the

petition.

6.    Apparently, as could be seen from the copies of the

documents tendered across the bar by Mr. Kendre to this

Court, for which the applications at Exhibits 49 and 51 are

filed, all these documents are coming from the custody of the

petitioners themselves.

7.    Though the Trial Court has allowed the application at

Exhibit 49 by a single-line order without recording any reason

which ought to have been recorded, I find that none of these

documents are referred to by the defendants in their
                                5
                                              951 WP 14025 OF 2024

pleadings. That way, the Trial Court is justified in recording its

observation in paragraph No.4 that those documents are not

referred to in the written statement by the defendants.

8.    Certainly, if a party demonstrates justifiable reasons, the

Trial Court may exercise its discretion in allowing such party

to produce documents at a belated stage. Such discretion may

also justify permitting such party to reopen its evidence.

However, the conduct of the party and the nature of the

documents play a vital role while exercising such discretion by

the Trial Court.

9.    In the case in hand as observed above, the documents

which are sought to be proved are coming from the custody of

the defendants themselves. By no stretch of imagination, it

could be accepted that the defendants were not aware of the

existence of the documents. Nor any case is made out as to

what prevented the defendants despite exercise of due

diligence from obtaining such documents or proving the same

in the suit proceedings.

10.   The conduct of the petitioners cannot be overlooked. It

is only after the suit was finally argued by the plaintiffs that

the petitioners filed these two applications. It is also not the
                               6
                                             951 WP 14025 OF 2024

case of the petitioners that the documents sought to be

produced and proved were discovered at a later stage and

were not within their knowledge even after exercise of due

diligence.

11.   When a party seeks to produce and prove certain

documents at such a belated stage, the responsibility of such

party is on the higher side. As could be seen from the text of

the application, nowhere have the petitioners explained the

circumstances as to how they came in possession of the

documents and more importantly as to why such documents

are necessary to be proved in the suit. The applications are as

casual as they could be.

12.   In view of the above, the application at Exhibit 51 was

nothing but an abuse of the process in the circumstances of

the case. I find that the case does not call for exercise of

jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

13.   The Writ Petition stands dismissed.



                                   ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
PRW