SOJARBAI BHAUSAHEB SAMUDRE DIED LRS MAHADEO BHAUSAHEB SAMUDRE AND OTHERSversusNAMDEV MANIK BHORE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:6361
                                                 1                         18 WP 8410-2017.odt




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               18 WRIT PETITION NO. 8410 OF 2017

              SOJARBAI BHAUSAHEB SAMUDRE DIED THROUGH L.RS. MAHADEO
                          BHAUSAHEB SAMUDRE AND OTHERS
                                     VERSUS
                          NAMDEV MANIK BHORE AND OTHERS

                                                  …
             Mr. M.P. Tripathi – Advocate for Petitioners
             Mr. S.B. Bhapkar – Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6
                                                  …

                                   CORAM         : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                   DATE          : 12.02.2026

             PER COURT :
             1.     Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.


             2.     By way of the present petition, the petitioners are challenging the

             orders dated 27.09.2016 and 02.12.2016, passed below Exhibits 69 and

             73 in Special Civil Suit No.148 of 2011 by the learned 3rd Joint Civil

             Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, whereby the applications filed by the

             petitioner for adjournment and for setting aside order below Exhibit 69,

             respectively came to be rejected.


             3.     Learned Counsel, Mr. M.P. Tripathi, for the petitioners, submits that

             the petitioner/original plaintiff has filed the suit claiming damages. In

             that context, an application was filed seeking permission to produce

             documents and to lead evidence. The said application came to be rejected
                                   2                         18 WP 8410-2017.odt


by the learned Trial Court merely on the ground that, the petitioner was

directed to step into the witness box but she failed to do so. As regards

the production of documents, learned Counsel for the petitioners was

heard at length. The petitioners seek to place on record a copy of the

panchanama, whereby possession was delivered pursuant to the decree in

R.C.S. No.68 of 1983, and the petitioners were put in possession in R.D.

No.75 of 2006. On that ground, it is submitted that the learned Trial

Court ought to have allowed the application.


4.    Per contra, learned Counsel Mr. S.B. Bhapkar, for respondent

Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6, submits that so far as possession is concerned, the

defendants have not denied possession of the petitioners. It is submitted

that the petitioners are only prolonging the proceedings by filing such

applications. The copy of the decree and the fact of delivery of possession

in R.D. No.75 of 2006 are not in dispute. Since the suit is for damages, it

is for the plaintiffs to prove the same by leading evidence. Learned

Counsel further invited the attention of the Court to the observation of

the learned Trial Court that all the relevant documents are already on

record and, therefore, the application for production of additional

documents was rightly rejected.


5.    Having gone through the record and having heard the learned

Counsel for the parties at length, it appears that the petitioners seek to

place on record a copy of the panchanama showing delivery of possession
                                      3                          18 WP 8410-2017.odt


pursuant to execution proceedings. The said documents are part of a

Court decree and the panchanama was effected pursuant to execution by

the competent Court. These documents are already on record. More

particularly, the defendants have categorically contended that they have

not disputed possession. In that view of the matter, the application filed

by the plaintiffs for production of the said panchanama on record is not

warranted. Since the suit is for damages, it is for the plaintiffs to lead

appropriate evidence to prove the same. To that extent, this Court is not

inclined to entertain the present petition.


6.       The petitioners are directed to remain present for cross-

examination before the learned Trial Court on 13.03.2026. Learned

Counsel, Mr. S.B. Bhapkar, for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 submits

that they are ready to cross-examine the plaintiffs on the said date.


7.       In view thereof, the petitioners shall remain present for cross-

examination before the learned Trial Court on 13.03.2026.


8.       The Writ Petition stands disposed of.


9.       Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.




                                            [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                      JUDGE
Pooja Kale/