( 1 ) 13 WP 8685 OF 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 13 WRIT PETITION NO. 8685 OF 2024 BARKYA RESHMA GAVIT DEAD AND OTHERS VERSUS RAMABAI DHEDYA GAVIT AND ANOTHER ... Mr. Jayant R. Shah, Advocate for the Petitioners Ms. Mrunal Andhare h/f. Mr. A. B. Kale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 … CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : 24.08.2026 PER COURT :- . In a suit filed by the present respondents/plaintiffs seeking an injunction against the petitioners/defendants, the pleadings were completed and the matter was posted for evidence. The plaintiffs entered the witness box and adduced their evidence. The petitioners/defendants cross-examined the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the petitioners/defendants commenced their evidence and entered the witness box for their examination-in-chief. During this period, an application came to be filed by the plaintiffs/respondents below Exhibit-72 seeking production of certain documents. The Trial Court, after hearing both the parties, allowed the said application. 2. The petitioners carried the said order in Writ Petition No.14537 of 2019 before this Court. This Court was pleased to reject the said writ petition, however, granting liberty to the defendants to file an application seeking permission to recall the plaintiffs for further cross-examination. In view thereof, the plaintiffs subsequently produced the documents. Pursuant thereto, 2026:BHC-AUG:38681 ( 2 ) 13 WP 8685 OF 2024 the petitioners filed the present application below Exhibit-86 before the Trial Court, praying for recall of the plaintiffs for further cross-examination. The said application came to be rejected by the Trial Court vide impugned order dated 19.04.2024. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. Apparently, the application below Exhibit-86 is not an exhaustive one. It refers to the directions issued by this Court, whereas no such directions were issued by this Court. This Court had merely granted liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application. May it be, it is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs produced certain documents after their evidence was over. Consequently, the defendants had no occasion to cross-examine the plaintiffs with regard to the said documents. The defendants are, therefore, entitled to an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiffs with regard to the said documents, including their execution and legality. 4. Learned Advocate for the respondents/plaintiffs opposes the petition contending that the application is absolutely inadequate to make out a case for recall of the plaintiffs for further cross-examination. She submits that the Trial Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. 5. True that the application is vague. However, it is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs were permitted to produce certain documents after their examination-in-chief was over. The defendants, therefore, be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiffs with regard to the said documents. The defendants cannot be deprived of such an opportunity particularly when the documents were brought on record subsequent to the completion of the plaintiffs' evidence. ( 3 ) 13 WP 8685 OF 2024 6. In view of the above, and in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to allow the writ petition. 7. The Writ Petition is allowed. 8. The impugned order dated 19.04.2024 passed below Exhibit-86 by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Navapur, in Regular Civil Suit No.36 of 2012, is quashed and set aside. 9. The application below Exhibit-86 stands allowed. 10. Needless to mention, the further cross-examination of the plaintiffs, as permitted by this Court, shall be conducted after completion of the evidence of the defendants. 11. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] PRW