Bombay High Court
VATSALABAI JAGANNATH DHANWATE DECEASED THROUGH LRS KALPANA RAJENDRA JADHAV AND OTHERSversusRAMESH KARBHARI WARULE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed, with no interference in the trial court's findings.
Summary
The petitioners, representing the estate of the deceased Vatsalabai Dhanwate, filed a writ petition seeking to compel the trial court to order the collection of evidence. The trial court had rejected their application, finding no merit. The petitioners then requested leave to file a fresh application at a later stage, as suggested by the trial court, which could involve appointing a court commissioner if the defendants had an alternate road to their agricultural lands. The High Court, noting its reluctance to interfere with the trial court's findings, dismissed the writ petition but permitted the petitioners to file the suggested application later. The trial court will decide any such application on its merits.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate forum for seeking an order to collect evidence in the present dispute?
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's refusal to appoint a court commissioner.
Subjects
- writ petition
- evidence collection
- court commissioner
- trial court findings
- procedural law
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42877
1
942-wp-3101-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3101 OF 2024
Vatsalabai Jagannath Dhanwate Deceased Through Lrs
Kalpana Rajendra Jadhav And Others
VERSUS
Ramesh Karbhari Warule And Others
...
Mr. N. D. Sonavane, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent-State
Mr. P. M. Borde h/f Mr. S. S. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for
Respondent nos.1 to 15
…..
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATED : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :-
. From the recitals of the application filed by the present
petitioners at Exhibit-56, it is apparent that the application
was filed to collect the evidence. The Trial Court has rightly
rejected such application. So far as the observations recorded
by the learned Judge of the Trial Court are concerned, I do
not find any infirmity therein.
2. Noticing disinclination of this Court to entertain the
Writ Petition, Mr. N. D. Sonavane, learned Advocate for the
petitioners seeks leave to file appropriate application at an
appropriate stage as is opined by the Trial Court at paragraph
2
942-wp-3101-2024
no.7 of its order. The Trial Court has observed that if it comes
on record that the defendants have alternate approach road to
access their agricultural properties, an application to appoint
Court Commissioner could be considered.
3. As observed above, I am not inclined to interfere in the
findings recorded by the Trial Court. Hence, The Writ Petition
stands dismissed. However, in view of the opinion expressed
by the learned Judge of the Trial Court, the petitioners may
file an application at an appropriate stage, if so advised. If
such application is filed, the Trial Court shall decide it on its
own merits.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
Rushikesh/2026
Checking your session…