JEEVAN VINAYAK JAHAGIRDARversusAGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE AND ANOTHER

                                     1                   WP / 4836 / 2022


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                1002 WRIT PETITION NO. 4836 OF 2022

                   JIVAN VINAYAK JAHAGIRDAR
                            VERSUS
     AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE AND ANOTHER

                               WITH
                   WRIT PETITION NO. 6338 OF 2022

                  JEEVAN VINAYAK JAHAGIRDAR
                            VERSUS
     AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE AND ANOTHER

                                      ...
        Advocate for petitioner : Mr. K.B. Borde h/f. Mr. C.T. Jadhav
             Advocate for respondent no. 1 : Mr. K.S. Warad
            AGP for the respondent – State : Mrs. M.L. Sangit
                                      ...

            CORAM                : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.

            DATE                 : 13 JANUARY 2026

PER COURT :

            Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.


2.          By way of writ petition no. 4836 of 2022, the petitioner

assails the order dated 25.11.2021 passed below Exhibit – 482 and

order dated 22.04.2022 passed below Exhibit – 494 by learned District

Judge – 2, Jalgaon in Commercial Suit no. 1 of 2019.


3.          In writ petition no. 6338 of 2022, the petitioner assails the

order dated 14.07.2021 passed below Exhibit – 469 by the learned

District Judge – 2, Jalgaon in Commercial Suit No. 1 of 2019.
                                    2                   WP / 4836 / 2022


4.          The petitioner / original plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery

of amount wherein he tendered a list of witnesses at Exhibit – 468 for

issuance of witness summons to the witnesses referred in that list. The

learned trial Court issued witness summons to the witnesses

mentioned in that list vide its order dated 14.07.2021.


5.          Thereafter, on 24.06.2021, the original plaintiff / petitoner

filed an application for a ‘notice to produce documents’ under section

66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 at Exhibit – 469, thereby requiring

original defendant no. 1 / respondent no. 1 to produce documents. The

said application was rejected by the learned trial Court on 14.07.2021

by citing that this Court has observed that the suit proceeding were to

be conducted on day to day basis and no unnecessary adjournments

could be allowed except for extremely compelling reasons and in

exceptional cases and the petitioner was trying to delay the suit on

frivolous grounds.

6.          Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

application below Exhibit – 482 was filed by the petitioner on

23.09.2021 wherein he prayed for issuance of summons to the Director

of Marketing, Pune and the same was rejected by the learned trial

Court by directing that the original plaintiff / petitioner shall file the

affidavits of evidence of remaining witnesses simultaneously whose

evidence was proposed to be led by him as per the first case
                                    3                 WP / 4836 / 2022


management programme. Subsequently, another application below

Exhibit – 484 came to be filed by the petitioner with a prayer that he

may be exempted from complying the order passed on Exhibit – 482

whereby he was directed to file affidavits of remaining witnesses.


7.             One more application below Exhibit – 492 was filed with a

prayer to issue witness summons to Mr. Dagadu Patil but the same

was not pressed by the original plaintiff / petitioner. Thereafter,

application below Exhibit - 494 was filed under Order XVI Rule 1 of the

CPC for issuance of witness summons to the witnesses mentioned in

the list of witnesses at Exhibit – 468 (except the witness no. 1 /

petitioner) and the same was also rejected on 22.04.2022.


8.             There is no dispute about the fact that the learned trial

Court had issued witness summons to the witnesses mentioned in the

list tendered by petitioner at Exhibit – 468. Once the trial Court has

already issued summons by an order at Exhibit – 468, there was no

reason for the trial Court to reject the subsequent application at Exhibit

– 494 which was for obtaining summons. It is not the case that the

order passed below Exhibit - 468 was challenged and set aside rather

the same is in operation. Therefore, the subsequent rejection of

application at Exhibit - 494 for obtaining summons cannot sustain in the

eyes of law.
                                     4                  WP / 4836 / 2022


9.              While deciding the application below Exhibit - 482, the

learned trial Court is directed the petitioner to file the affidavits of

evidence of the remaining witnesses simultaneously. But it is for the

plaintiff to lead the evidence of witnesses as per the list at Exhibit –

468. Therefore, the order passed below Exhibit – 482 is also not

sustainable.


10.            In view thereof, the writ petition no. 4836 of 2022 is

allowed. The order dated 25.11.2021 passed below Exhibit – 482 and

order dated 22.04.2022 passed below Exhibit – 494 by learned District

Judge – 2, Jalgaon in Commercial Suit no. 1 of 2019 are quashed and

set aside. The applications at Exhibit - 482 and 494 are allowed.


11.            In writ petition no. 6338/2022, the learned trial court while

deciding an application below Exhibit – 469 has reffered to the

observation made by this court in writ petition no. 716/2020 wherein

this court has directed the learned trial court to observe the time limit

scrupulously in order to decide the matter and not to adjourn the matter

except for extremely compelling reasons or in exceptional cases. The

learned trial court further observed that petitioner was trying to delay

the matter.

12.            The learned trial court has failed to appreciate the aspect

that the petitioner cannot proved his case unless he is allowed to

examine the witnesses and produce relevant documents. The petitioner
                                    5                  WP / 4836 / 2022


shall be granted an opportunity in the interest of justice to call

witnesses and examine them. Therefore, I am inclined to quash and

set aside the order passed below Exhibit – 469.

13.           In view thereof, the writ petition no. 6338 of 2022 is

allowed. The order dated 14.07.2021 passed below Exhibit – 469 by

the learned District Judge – 2, Jalgaon in Commercial Suit No. 1 of

2019 is quashed and set aside. The application below Exhibit – 469 is

allowed.

14.           It is clarified that only because application below Exhibit –

469, Exhibit- 482 and Exhibit- 494 are allowed, it does not mean that

plaintiffs have proved their case and it is for the parties to prove the

case by leading evidence.


15.           The Commercial suit no. 1 of 2019 is pending since the

year 2010 and this court has already directed in writ petition no. 716 of

2020 to conduct day to day hearing in the said suit. But it seems that

for one or other reason the hearing of suit is protracted.

16.           Therefore, learned trial court is directed to decide the suit

within a period of six month from today. All the parties are expected not

to seek unnecessary adjournments and not to file frivolous applications

to protract the trial.


                                [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                          JUDGE
arp/