TEJAL DISPLAY SYSTEMS PROP SHARAD BAPURAO YEOLEversusZILLA PARISHAD JALGAON THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:39761



                                                               25-WP No.1782 of 2024.odt


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                WRIT PETITION NO.1782 OF 2024

            Tejal Display Systems,
            Prop. Sharad Bapurao Yeole,
            Age – 60 Years, Occu. Business,
            r/o. Samarth Park, Sane Guruji Nagar,
            Chalisgaon, Tq. and Dist. Jalgaon                    ..Petitioner
                        Vs.
            Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon,
            Through Chief Executive Officer,
            Zilla Parishad Office,
            Near Patrya Maroti,
            Baliram Peth, Jalgaon
            and others                                           ..Respondents

                                             ----
            Mr.M.M.Bhokarikar, Advocate for petitioner
            Mr.R.H.Mewara, Advocate for respondent no.1
                                             ----

                                       CORAM :       AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                       DATE  :       AUGUST 29, 2026
            ORAL JUDGMENT :-

                        Rule.    Rule made returnable forthwith.    Heard for final

            disposal by the consent of learned advocate for the parties.


            2.          Notably, a composite prayer challenging three different

            orders passed by the trial court on three independent applications are

            under challenge by a single Writ Petition.    The petitioner instituted

            Special Civil Suit No.204 of 2012 against the present respondents for

            the following substantive reliefs:-
                                       2                     25-WP No.1782 of 2024



                  B. The defendants may be ordered to jointly and
                  severally repay an amount of Rs. 30,45,992/- to
                  the plaintiff and the same may be recovered form
                  the defendants.


                  C. The defendants may be ordered to jointly and
                  severally repay the interest @24% p.a. on Rs.
                  20,03,600/- from dt. 31/03/2012 till the entire
                  amount is repaid by defendants to the plaintiff.


                  D. The exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/- of this suit
                  may be saddled on defendants.



3.          In the said suit, the defendants appeared and filed their

written statements. The issues were framed.


4.          On the basis of the pleadings and arguments, I now deal

on the merits of the Writ Petition.


5.          The record shows that after the matter was fixed for

evidence, the evidence        was opened.        The plaintiff filed one

application Exh.172 thereby seeking issuance of witness summons to

one Dr.Rajesh Jain, Dr. Pramod Pandhare and Suresh Nile.                    The

application was opposed by the defendants.              However, for the

reasons recorded the trial court allowed the application vide order

dated 03.01.2023 and issued witnesses summons to said witnesses.
                                        3                     25-WP No.1782 of 2024



6.          Subsequently,    on     18.08.2023      another       application

Exh.187 came to be filed by the plaintiff seeking witness summons

to one Somnath Rathi and another witness Mr.Rohan Mundada. The

reason for issuance of the witnesses summons to these persons was

stated that they were vendors of the petitioner/plaintiff from whom

the plaintiff had purchased acrylic board and box.                  The said

application was opposed by the defendants. Upon hearing both the

parties, the trial court vide order dated 18.08.2023 rejected the said

application. The trial court at paragraph 6 of the order observed that

there were no pleadings in the plaint that the plaintiff has allegedly

purchased the acrylic board and box from the said persons to whom

witness summons was sought to be served.         It was observed that it

was an unnecessary exercise to issue witness summons to those

persons. This is the first order impugned in the present Writ Petition.


7.          Subsequently, another application Exh.189 came to be

filed on 08.09.2023 thereby requesting to issue witness summons to

one Anil Choudhari, Proprietor of Deva Arts. To justify the prayer it

was   stated   that   the   plaintiff   has   got   acrylic     panel/board

painted/printed by radium from the said witness. Hence, the plaintiff

contended that it would be desirable to have the said witnesses

during the evidence for proving the case. The said application was
                                     4                    25-WP No.1782 of 2024



dealt with by the trial court on its own merit. Vide the order dated

29.09.2023 the trial court rejected this application also with costs.

The trial court observed that beyond the pleadings a plaintiff cannot

lead such evidence which is not covered by the pleadings.               It is

observed that this evidence was also irrelevant for proving the

prayers in the plaint.    This is the second order impugned in the

present petition.


8.            Thereafter, another application Exh.192 came to be filed

by the plaintiffs seeking witness summons to the Manager, Bank of

India, Hirapur Road Branch, Chalisgaon and Manager, Axis Bank,

Chalisgaon.     The text of the application shows that the plaintiff

wanted to prove that certain cheques were issued by the defendants

to the plaintiff towards the work allotted and has accordingly

advanced some consideration amount also.          This application was

also opposed by the defendants. The trial court while deciding this

application observed that there were no pleadings in the plaint that

cheques were advanced by the defendants to the plaintiff towards

consideration/part consideration of the contract. Hence, for want of

pleadings the trial court opined that the plaintiff cannot be allowed

to call the said witnesses for this purpose. With this finding, the third

application Exh.192 came to be rejected by the trial court on
                                      5                   25-WP No.1782 of 2024



02.12.2023. This is the third order impugned by the petitioner in the

present Writ Petition.


9.           Heard Mr.Bhokarikar, learned advocate for the petitioner

and Mr.Mewara, learned advocate for the respondents.


10.          Mr.Bhokarikar, learned       advocate for the petitioner

submitted that the entire endeavor of the plaintiff was to prove his

case. He would submit that the plaintiff has every right to introduce

such evidence which is in support of his plaint and hence trial court

ought to have allowed all the three applications. He would further

submit that merely for want of pleadings, a party must not be

precluded from producing the evidence in support of his case. He

submits that what is pleaded is the fact and not the evidence and

hence, the      plaintiff is absolutely justified in seeking witness

summons to those witnesses.

11.          Mr.Mewara, learned advocate for the respondents would

support the findings rendered by the trial court. He would submit

that there is no error in the observations recorded by the trial court

and hence the Writ Petition may be dismissed.

12.          Considered   the   submissions    advanced     by     learned

advocate for the parties. Firstly, this court has strong reservations
                                       6                    25-WP No.1782 of 2024



for impugning three different orders passed by the trial court at three

different occasions on independent applications in a common Writ

Petition. On this count itself the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed

with costs.    However, considering that the Writ Petition is filed in

2024 and this court has issued notice granting stay to the suit

proceedings, I now proceed to deal with each order impugned in this

present Writ Petition.


13.           So far as the order dated 18.08.2023 passed on

application below Exh.187 is concerned, what is seen that the

petitioner wants to call such witnesses who are his vendors from

whom he has purchased acrylic board and box. The civil suit is in

respect of a contract between the plaintiff and the defendants. The

witnesses to whom witness summons are sought are not at all

concerned     with   the   contract   between   the   plaintiff   and      the

defendants. The plaintiff has to prove his case to the extent of his

pleadings that he supplied certain material to the defendants and

the defendants failed to pay the consideration against such supply.

In view of this, there is absolutely no necessity to issue witness

summons to the persons indicated in the application below Exh.187.

I am not fully agreed with the findings recorded by the trial court for

rejection of the application.     However, for the reasons recorded
                                    7                    25-WP No.1782 of 2024



above, I find that those witnesses have least relevance with the trial

between the plaintiff and the defendants. Hence, there is no reason

to interfere with the order passed by the trial court on application

below Exh.187.


14.         Now, coming to the application below Exh.189, it also

resembles with application below Exh.187.      The plaintiff/petitioner

referred to one Anil Choudhari, Proprietor of Deva Arts from whom he

got acrylic board and box painted/transcripted with radium art. The

plaintiff/petitioner sought issuance of witness summons to Shri.Anil

Choudhari to prove his case. As observed above, the findings which I

have rendered in respect of the order on application below Exh.187,

are applicable to the application below Exh.189 also. This witness is

also irrelevant for the purpose of proving the plaintiff’s civil rights

against the defendants.      The said witness – Anil Choudhari was

neither a party to the contract between the plaintiff and defendant

nor such case is put up by the petitioner/plaintiff before me. In view

of this, I find that issuance of witness summons to Anil Choudhari is

not at all warranted. Hence, in my opinion, no interference is called

for in the order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the trial court on

application below Exh.189.
                                    8                   25-WP No.1782 of 2024



15.          Now, as regards the third application Exh.192, it is seen

that by virtue of this application witness summons are sought to be

issued to two bank officials to prove that the defendants had issued

two cheques in the name of the plaintiff. It is sought to be explained

that since the defendants have refused any sort of relation with the

plaintiff and any transaction, it was necessary to call for those

witnesses in the witness box to prove that the defendants have

issued cheques to the plaintiff. Said application was also opposed by

the defendants. The trial court observed that the factum of issuance

of cheque is not pleaded in the plaint and hence the plaintiff would

not adduce such evidence which was not pleaded.


16.          The argument of Mr.Bhokarikar, learned advocate for the

petitioner/plaintiff is convincing to some extent. The evidence need

not be pleaded. What is needed to be pleaded are the facts. I have

reservations about the findings recorded by the trial court as to if

issuance of cheques was not pleaded in the plaint only on that count

the witness summons could not have been issued to those

witnesses.   However, the trial court has rightly observed that the

factum of payment of some consideration/part consideration by the

defendants to the plaintiff could be very well brought on record by

producing the bank’s statements and proceeding further in evidence
                                      9                    25-WP No.1782 of 2024



on that basis. This fact cannot be overlooked that the defendants

have candidly denied that they had placed any order for supplying

acrylic board and box to the plaintiff and that they had made any

payment to the plaintiff to that regard. However, the mode to prove

this fact as observed by the trial court is still at the hands of the

plaintiff. For that purpose, the petitioner/plaintiff was not justified in

praying for issuance of witness summons to the Bank Managers

referred in the application. In view of this, I do not find that the third

order also calls for interference of this court under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.


17.         It is pertinent to note that the first application for

issuance of witness summons was filed at Exh.172 which was

allowed. The petitioner could have sought witness summons to all

such witnesses whom he deemed necessary to call before the court.

However, intermittently applications are filed one after another

whereby the suit is delayed. This conduct is highly deprecable.


18.         Resultantly, the petition fails.   The   petition is pending

since 2024 and the petitioner has got his own suit stayed. For the

reasons recorded above particularly about the petitioner’s conduct, I

deem it appropriate that the petition is liable to be dismissed with

costs.
                                  10                 25-WP No.1782 of 2024



19.           Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of

Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand).   Costs be deposited in the

trial   court within a period of four weeks from today.       Rule is

discharged.



                                [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
                              ………..
KBP