Bombay High Court
ANANT GANPAT DAMUSHTEversusPARSHURAM SITARAM GHAG (SINCE DECEASED THR. L/h 1A TO 1B
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The order rejecting the application was not a decision on merits; the petitioner may re‑file the application with legible documents.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 05‑11‑2025 that rejected his Application Exh.25 filed under Order XXI Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Code because the documents submitted were not legible. The learned judge observed that the rejection was not on the merits but solely on the lack of legibility, and that the petitioner should have been given a chance to produce readable documents. Consequently, the court held that the impugned order did not forfeit the petitioner’s right to re‑file the application with proper documents. The writ petition was therefore disposed, granting the petitioner liberty to file the application again with legible papers, which will be decided on its merits. The decision underscores the procedural requirement of submitting legible documents and the court’s duty to allow a fair opportunity to correct deficiencies.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of an order rejecting an application under Order XXI Rule 35 of the CPC on the petitioner’s right to re‑file the application with legible documents?
- Whether the rejection of the application on the ground of illegibility amounts to a decision on merits, thereby forfeiting the petitioner’s right to file a fresh application.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XXI Rule 35
Subjects
- Writ petition
- Order XXI Rule 35
- Civil Procedure Code
- Legible documents
- Procedural fairness
- Application rejection
Judgment
77-WP-4052-2026=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4052 OF 2026
Digitally
signed by
UDAY
Anant Ganpat Damushte … Petitioner
UDAY SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI JAGTAP
Vs.
JAGTAP Date:
2026.08.27
18:38:51
+0530 Parshuram Sitaram Ghag (since Deceased Thr. L/h … Respondent
1a To 1b
………….
Mr. Rahul Shridhar Rane for the Petitioner
………….
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 25th AUGUST, 2026.
P. C. :
. Heard.
2. The petitioner challenges order dated 05.11.2025 rejecting
Application Exh.25 which was preferred under Order XXI Rule 35 of the
CPC.
3. It is observed by learned Judge while rejecting Application Exh.25
that petitioner did not produce on record legible documents. There is no
rejection on merits of the matter. Instead of rejecting the application,
the learned Judge should have granted opportunity to the petitioner to
produce on record the relevant papers. The impugned order does not
forfeit the right of the petitioner to file application along with relevant
and legible documents.
Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 2
77-WP-4052-2026=.doc
4. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of with
liberty to the petitioner to file application along with relevant and legible
documents, which shall be dealt with on its own merits.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )
Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 2
Checking your session…