Bombay High Court
HERMES DEVELOPERS THR. ITS PARTNER KETAN THAKKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that objections to the relevance of documents are to be made at the time evidence is led, and therefore the writ petition was disposed.
Summary
Hermes Developers (Petitioner) appealed against an order dated 13 November 2025 that rejected its application to have certain documents produced by the State of Maharashtra and others (Respondents) struck off as irrelevant. The Respondents contended that the documents, including blueprints of floor plans of other properties, were pertinent to their defence. The Petitioner argued that under a suit governed by Section 24, such blueprints were not relevant to the matters before the court. The Court observed that objections to the relevance of evidence should be raised at the time the evidence is led, and the trial court would decide the issue then. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without further order.
Issues considered
- Whether the documents produced by the Respondents, such as blueprints of other properties, are relevant to the suit filed under Section 24.
- Whether the petitioner can pre‑emptively object to the relevance of such documents through a writ petition.
Subjects
- relevance of documents
- evidentiary objection
- Section 24 suit
- writ petition
- civil appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
Sonali Mane 34-WP-9109-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9109 OF 2026
Hermes Developers Thr. Its
Partner Ketan Thakkar … Petitioner
Versus
State Of Maharashtra And Ors. … Respondents
Adv. Vivek Kantawala a/w Adv. Vivek M. Sharma, Adv. Harsha
Masand i/b Adv. Jash B. Vyas for Petitioner.
Adv. Mamta S. Srivastava, AGP for Respondent No.1.
Adv. Shon Gadgil a/w Adv. Murtaza Chherawala, Adv. Vidhi
Khimavat, Adv. Asmita Mogre, Adv. Mihika Awahte i/b CNS Juris for
Respondent No.2.
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 21 AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for parties.
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner challenges the order
dated 13 November, 2025 rejecting the Application at Exhibit 139 and
140 for rejection of the documents produced by the Respondents as
being irrelevant.
Digitally
signed by
MANE
MANE SONALI
SONALI DILIP
DILIP Date:
2026.08.25
14:59:04
+0530
1/2
Sonali Mane 34-WP-9109-2026.docx
3. It is the case of the Respondents that the documents filed in
support of the defence are relevant to establish his defence.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner
submit that in a suit under Section 24, the documents particularly blue
prints of floor plan of other properties are not relevant for the purpose
of the present suit.
5. The Petitioner may raise these objections at the time when the
evidence is lead and the Court concern would decide the same at the
time of the evidence.
6. The Writ Petition is disposed of.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]
2/2
Checking your session…