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 2026:BHC-AUG:6361 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/