1 of 3 104-WP.10886.2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 104 WRIT PETITION NO. 10886 OF 2016 TULSIDAS YASHWANT BOLIJ AND OTHERS VERSUS KARBHARI GOPAL BOLIJ DIED LRS BABASAHEB KARBHARI BOLIJ AND OTHERS ... Mr. Sanket S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. Vikram R. Dhorde, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 9th MARCH 2026 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. By the present petition, the Petitioners are assailing the order dated 10.10.2016 passed below Exhibit-143 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kopargaon in R.C.S. No.24 of 2010, whereby the application filed by the Petitioners seeking permission to exhibit two documents which are more than 30 years old came to be rejected. 3. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that a R.C.S. No.24 of 2010 was filed by the Petitioners seeking specific performance and perpetual injunction against the Respondents, wherein they tendered their affidavit of examination-in-chief below Exhibit-98. During examination-in-chief, they sought to exhibit a lease deed and an agreement to sale which were more than 30 years old. The learned Tauseef 2026:BHC-AUG:10637 2 of 3 104-WP.10886.2016 Trial Court refused to exhibit them, therefore, Petitioners filed application below Exhibit-143 seeking to exhibit those documents, but the learned Trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be invoked because the said presumption is not with regard to the contents of the documents, rather it is in respect of execution and attestation only. He further submits that the said findings are perverse and merely executing the documents does not amount to their proof, it is for the parties to prove the same. 4. Per contra, Mr. Vikram R. Dhorde, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 support the order passed by learned Trial Court. 5. Upon the perusal of the record and the impugned order, it is clear that, the Trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that it was filed at the fag end of the trial and that when the parties had earlier led their evidence, the discretion to raise a presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act could not be exercised. 6. After hearing the learned Advocate for the Petitioners, I find that the documents in question are more than 30 years old. Merely permitting such documents to be exhibited under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not amount to proof of the documents. It is for the concerned parties to prove the said documents in Tauseef 3 of 3 104-WP.10886.2016 accordance with law and it is for the Trial Court to assess their evidentiary value. 7. In view thereof, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 10.10.2016 passed below Exhibit-143 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kopargaon in R.C.S. No.24 of 2010 is quashed and set aside. 8. The lease deed and the agreement to sale dated 29.01.1971 are permitted to be exhibited. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef