Bombay High Court

JYOTI @ PRITI MANOJ NAYAK AND ANRversusMUTHA ENGINEERING PVT LTD THRU M.D.

Decided: 3 September 2026
Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The trial court's order dismissing the petitioners' application to lead evidence stands, as sufficient opportunity was granted and the evidence sought is irrelevant.

Summary

The petitioners, Jyoti @ Priti Manoj Nayak and others, filed a writ petition challenging the Small Causes Court's order dismissing their application to lead evidence on a newly framed bonafide issue. After the issue was framed on 3 July 2024, the respondents closed their evidence the same day, and the petitioners were later granted a chance to lead evidence on 22 February 2024, but failed to do so despite multiple adjournments. The petitioners argued that they were denied a fair opportunity, while the respondents contended that ample chances were provided, citing sixteen listings of the matter. The High Court observed that the petitioners repeatedly sought to adduce evidence without success and that the evidence sought was irrelevant. Consequently, the Court found no merit in interfering with the lower court's order and dismissed the petition.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petitioners' application to lead evidence on the additional bonafide issue.
Whether the petitioners were denied sufficient opportunity to lead evidence.
Whether the evidence sought by the petitioners is relevant to the dispute.

Subjects

writ petition
evidence
adjournment
bonafide requirement
trial court order
procedural delay

Judgment

2026:BHC-AS:36966


            Diksha Rane                                              45 WP 9163 2026.docx



                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                   WRIT PETITION NO.9163/2026

            JYOTI @ PRITI MANOJ NAYAK & ANR     ..PETITIONERS
                 VS
            MUTHA ENGINEERING PVT LTD THRU M.D. ..RESPONDENTS

                 Adv. Akshata Nayak a/w. Adv. Parth Talekar for petitioners.
                 Adv. A. M. Kulkarni a/w. Adv. Sachin Pawar, Adv. Shailesh
                 Chavan, Adv. Satish Dhoka for respondents.

                                              CORAM         : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

                                              DATE          : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026.

            Per Court :
            1.            Heard learned counsel for the parties.

            2.            Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-defendants
            submits that after closure of the evidence, additional issue was
            framed of bonafide requirement on the basis of the pleadings of the
            parties. On framing of the additional issue on 3rd July, 2024, the
            respondents-plaintiffs closed their evidence on the added issue on the
            same day. On the next date i.e. 22nd February, 2024, the petitioners-
            defendants were granted opportunity to lead evidence, thereafter,
            the matter was listed multiple times. However, the petitioners-
            defendants were not able to lead evidence and accordingly, filed
            application to lead evidence, and the same is dismissed by the Trial
            Court.
                                              Page 1 of 2
                                           3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
                      Diksha Rane                                               45 WP 9163 2026.docx



                      3.              Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-
                      plaintiffs submits that the sufficient opportunity was granted and
                      that on sixteen occasions the matter was adjourned by which on only
                      two dates the Court was not available. Moreover, the evidence which
                      sought to be produced relates to the witnesses i.e. BSNL Office, PMC
                      Office, Branch Manager of Karad Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd., Laxmi
                      Road Branch, Pune, with a direction to bring documents concerning
                      the construction of ‘Sankala Arcade’ Building – suit property and loan
                      documents.

                      4.              Prima facie, there is no relevance of the evidence which is
                      mere sought to be produced. The roznama is produced on record,
                      which shows that sixteen times the matter is listed and thereafter an
                      application is filed to adduce evidence by petitioners-defendants.

                      5.              Sufficient opportunity has been granted to the petitioners-
                      defendants and the matter is pending since long period of time,
                      hence, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order
                      dated 18th February, 2026, passed below Exhibit – 220, by the Small
                      Causes Court at Pune.

                      6.              The petition stands dismissed accordingly.

                                                                        [ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]




                                                          Page 2 of 2
                                                       3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026



Signed by: Diksha Rane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/09/2026 19:17:52

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…