Bombay High Court

DALJEET SINGH MATHARU AND ORSversusPARANMJEET KAUR MATHARU AND ANR

Decided: 31 July 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: N JAMADAR

Holding

A document not proved in evidence cannot be ordered to be marked; parties may adduce the evidence as permissible by law.

Summary

The petitioners sought an order directing the Civil Judge to exhibit a sub‑lease dated 2 October 1982, which the judge had refused to mark. The petitioners argued that they should be allowed to tender the document in evidence and have its evidentiary value considered later. The Court held that a document which has not been proved in evidence cannot be ordered to be marked, and that the petitioners remain free to adduce evidence of the document in accordance with law. Consequently, the Court clarified that the petitioners may present the document as evidence at a proper stage, but the present request for exhibition was denied. The writ petition was therefore disposed.

Issues considered

Whether a civil court can order the exhibition of a document that has not been proved in evidence.
Whether the petitioners may be permitted to tender the document in evidence at a later stage.

Subjects

exhibition of document
evidence
civil procedure
writ petition
sub‑lease
marking of document

Judgment

                                                                            19 WP-9430-26.DOC

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 9430 OF 2026


                      Daljeet Singh Matharu & ors.                              ..Petitioners

                              Versus

                      Paramjeet Kaur Matharu & anr.                       …Respondents


                      Mr. Rahul Singh a/w Ms. Pranali Raut i/b Legal Catalyst, for
                           the Petitioners.

                                                 CORAM :       N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                                                 DATE     :    31st July 2026
SAINATH
SANJAY
BODKHE
Digitally signed by
SAINATH SANJAY
                      P.C.:
BODKHE
Date: 2026.08.01
10:57:22 +0530

                      1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

                      2.      The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 13 th

                      March, 2026 whereby the learned Civil Judge declined to exhibit

                      a document i.e. sub lease dated 02 nd October 1982 (Document

                      No.1 below Exh. 95).

                      3.      Mr. Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioners,

                      submitted that the petitioners could have been permitted to

                      tender the said document in evidence, and its evidentiary value

                      could be considered at a later stage.

                      4.      The learned Judge is justiAed in holding that since the

                      document is not proved in evidence, the same cannot be

                      marked. If the petitioners intend to prove the said document,
                      SAINATH, PA                        1/2
                                                       19 WP-9430-26.DOC

the petitioners are at liberty to adduce the evidence as

permissible in law.

5.            Subject to the aforesaid clariAcation, the Writ Petition

stands disposed.



                                            [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




SAINATH, PA                           2/2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…