Bombay High Court

VIJAY SHIVMURTTI KHANNA SINCE DEC. THR. LRS. AND ORS.versusGANPATRAO VITTHAL DONGARE AND ORS.

Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The court held that issuance of a witness summons and document production was not required and dismissed the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging orders dated 13.01.2026 and 20.03.2026 in Regular Civil Suit No. 44/2012, wherein the respondent sought specific performance of a 2010 sale agreement. The petitioners argued that there was no legal necessity to alienate the suit land and sought issuance of a witness summons and production of documents to prove their defence, claiming undue influence in the agreement. The court examined the written statement and specific defence, noting that the petitioners could adduce evidence of their employment, independent income, and their daughter's medical college admission. It held that the petitioners were capable of leading evidence without the need for a court‑issued summons and found no perversity or illegality in the lower court's orders. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a court‑issued witness summons and production of documents in the civil suit.
Whether the defence of no legal necessity for alienating the suit land justifies such summons.
Whether the impugned orders are perverse or illegal.

Subjects

specific performance
witness summons
civil suit
defence of legal necessity
writ petition
dismissal

Judgment

                                                           62 WP 4810 OF 2026.odt

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    62 WRIT PETITION NO. 4810 OF 2026

       VIJAY SHIVMURTTI KHANNA SINCE DEC. THR. LRS. AND ORS.
                                     VERSUS
                 GANPATRAO VITTHAL DONGARE AND ORS.
                                        ...
     Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Datta H. Powar a/w Mr. Abhijeet B. Desai

                       CORAM               :   SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                       DATE                : 01.10.2026


PER COURT :

         Heard learned counsel Mr. Desai for the petitioners.

2.      The petition is directed against the orders passed on 13.01.2026
below Exh. 94 and on 20.03.2026 below Exh. 95 in Regular Civil Suit No.
44/2012.

3.      Learned counsel Mr. Desai appearing for the petitioners submits that
considering the defence of the petitioners that there was absolutely no legal
necessity for alienating the suit land, the witness summons is required to be
issued. It is submitted that the petitioners were well of. They had
independent sources of income and the so-called agreement purported to
have been issued in favour of respondent-plaintiff is bogus and has been
issued by exerting undue influence. It is further submitted that the oral and
documentary evidence likely to be produced by the petitioners may not have
the sanctity and therefore if the papers are called      for from the offices
mentioned in the applications that would help in deciding the controversy
involved in the matter. It is further submitted that there is foundation for
claiming summons for the witness and the documents.


                                                                              1/2
                                                             62 WP 4810 OF 2026.odt

4.      Respondent no. 1 has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 44/2012 for specific
performance of contract founded on agreement to sale executed on
06.03.2010. It is informed that the evidence of the plaintiff is over and the
evidence of the petitioners defendants would commence. The petitioner-
deceased Vijay Shivmurti Khanna was in military services and his brother,
who is defendant no. 1 was in service of the Gadhinglaj Urban Cooperative
Bank. The daughter of the petitioner Suprya had taken admission in a
medical college for M.B.B.S. in the year 2004.

5.      I have gone through the written statement and specific defence that
there was no legal necessity. The employment of the deceased petitioner as
well as defendant no. 2 Ramesh can be proved by adducing evidence and
producing documents on record. It is not the case of the petitioners that it is
impossibility to show that they were in services and had independent source
of income. It further reveals that the admission of the daughter to medical
college can also be proved.

6.      The heirs of deceased petitioner and Ramesh can lead evidence before
the Court. The issuance of the summons for witness and production of the
documents is not required.        The suit is of 2012, which needs to be
concluded. It is not demonstrated as to how the reliable evidence to disclose
defence raised in the written statement cannot be adduced. I do not find
any perversity or patent illegality in the impugned order.

7.      The writ petition is dismissed.



                                          ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)




mkd/-




                                                                               2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…