901 WP NO. 2270 OF 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2270 OF 2024 Trimbak Sitaram Alias Sitya Muneshwar VERSUS Vasant Undraji Alias Undrya Muneshwar And Others … • Mr. Uday S. Malte, Advocate for the Petitioner • Mr. Vikrant P. Raje, Advocate for Respondent No. 3 … CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. DATED : 06.08.2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned Advocate for Respondent No.3. 2. Impugned in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are the orders dated 08.12.2023 and 16.12.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mahur, District Nanded below Exhibits 163 and 164, respectively, in Regular Civil Suit No.63 of 2008. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the original plaintiff and the respondents are the original defendants. 4. The learned Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings, recasted/framed the issues below Exhibit 83, and Issue No.6 Jhs/ 1/6 2026:BHC-AUG:34359 901 WP NO. 2270 OF 2024 reads that, whether Mutation Entry Nos.212, 222 and 853 are null, void and not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an application below Exhibit 163 on 08.12.2023 seeking issuance of witness summons to the then Talathi and Circle Officer, who had effected and certified the said mutation entries. The said application came to be rejected by the order dated 08.12.2023, observing that the mutation entries were already exhibited, being public documents, and therefore there was no necessity to examine the concerned witnesses in support thereof. 5. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application below Exhibit 164 seeking issuance of summons to the concerned Revenue Authorities to produce the original record relating to the Record of Rights and Mutation Entries of the suit land from the year 1965 onwards. The said application also came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 16.12.2023. 6. It is submitted that, once a specific issue has been framed by the Trial Court, both the applications ought to have been allowed. No prejudice would have caused to the defendants if the concerned Revenue Authorities had been summoned. It is further submitted that, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to Jhs/ 2/6 901 WP NO. 2270 OF 2024 adjudicate upon the validity of the mutation entries is not barred. It is submitted that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned orders be quashed and set aside. 7. It is submitted by learned advocate for Respondent No. 3 that, the revenue entries were already available on record and they were exhibited by the learned Civil Court. Being the public documents, they can be read in the evidence and therefore the learned Civil Court has rightly rejected both the applications, and the petition be dismissed. 8. The prayers on record goes to show that, the civil suit is filed with the following prayers - “(A)It may kindly be declared that the plff. is the owner of the suit property. It may kindly be declared that the sale deed bearing No.899 dated 2-4-70 executed in favour of Onkar is null and void and cannot be acted upon. (B) The Revenue mutation Entry No. 212 and 222 may kindly be declared to be null and void and not to be binding upon the plff. (C) Defendants be directed to deliver the actual physical possession of the suit land described in plaint para no.1 to the plff. (D) Enquiry into mesne profits to be ordered from the date of institution of the suit till actual receipt of the possession of the suit land. (E) Any other just and equitable relief in the interests of justice may kindly be passed. (F) The costs of the suit may kindly be saddled on the defendants. Jhs/ 3/6 901 WP NO. 2270 OF 2024 (G) The judgment and decree in R.C.S. No. 19/83 dated 31-12-84 be declared that it is nulity under law and not binding upon the plaintiff. (H) The Revenue Mutation Entry No. 853 be declared to be null and void and not to be binding upon the plaintiff. (I) The alleged will deed dated 22/1/2010 declared to be null and void and not to be binding upon plaintiff.” 9. The pleadings in the plaint goes to show that the said mutation entry No. 212 and 222 against which the declaration is sought that were made on the basis of the partition deed dated 01.04.1964. The pleadings in the plaint further goes to show that, there was one Regular Civil Suit No.19 of 1983. The said Regular Civil Suit was admittedly dismissed by judgment and order dated 31.12.1984. A copy of the said judgment was made available for perusal across the Bar by learned Advocate for the petitioner. It goes to show that the said civil suit was filed by Seetya, who was the father of the plaintiff – Trimbak Sitaram @ Sitya Muneshwar in the present suit, and the present Defendant No.1 – Vasant S/o Undraji @ Undrya Muneshwar was son of Defendant No.1 – Undrya in the said previous civil suit. The suit land was purchased by Defendant No.2 – Ratnakalabai from Namdeo, who was Defendant No.2 in the said previous suit. The Jhs/ 4/6 901 WP NO. 2270 OF 2024 pleadings in the plaint of the present suit further goes to show that Issue No.2 framed in the said earlier suit was as follows :- “Does he further prove that the defendants No. 1 and 2 with collusion of Revenue Officers get the name of the defendant No. 2 as a owner against the suit field?” 10. The learned Trial Court, in the impugned order, observed that, the said revenue entries were public documents and were already exhibited on record and, therefore, there was no need to examine the relevant Revenue Officers. The learned Trial Court further observed that, the validity of the mutation entries can be subjected to challenge under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, which provides for the remedy of appeal. The learned Trial Court also observed that, the mutation entries are for fiscal purposes and do not confer any right of ownership in the suit land. It is undisputed that, the present civil suit, in which the said exhibits were filed and upon which the impugned orders came to be passed, is for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and further for a declaration that the sale deed in favour of Omkar is null and void and the said mutation entries are not binding on the plaintiff. Jhs/ 5/6 901 WP NO. 2270 OF 2024 11. In the backdrop of the above factual aspects of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned orders. Hence, the following order :- O R D E R A) The writ petition is dismissed. B) The parties would be at liberty to request the learned Trial Court to decide the suit within a prescribed time limit. If such request is made, the same be considered by keeping in view all the relevant aspects. ( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. ) Jhs/ 6/6