108-WP-13107-2025 (C).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13107 OF 2025 Bapu Babu Shinde (since Dec. Thr. Lrs.) And Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Anil Ramchandra Jarag And Anr. ...Respondents ….. Adv. Shantanu Patil a/w Adv. Ashirwad Kolekar i/b Adv. Prithviraj Raorane, Advocate for Petitioners. Adv. Aditya S. Raktade a/w Adv. Ajit S. Jagtap a/w Adv. Viraj V. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, learned AGP for the Respondents-State. ….. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : Heard. 2. The petition is directed against order dated 16.09.2025 passed below Exhibit - 81 rejecting application for issuing witness summons for producing record. 3. The respondent has filed RCS No. 265 of 2016 for possession. Plaintiff's evidence is over. The petitioner - defendant had filed application at Exhibit - 75 seeking witness summons to Collector to bring record. It was rejected on 15.02.2025. Application Exhibit - 81 is ZIP 1 of 2 108-WP-13107-2025 (C).doc filed to issue witness summons to produce the documents, which is rejected by the impugned order. 4. The petitioner wants the revenue record to be produced before court and especially 7/12 extracts. It is submitted that initially his name was appearing, but thereafter it was excluded. It is contended that if the Tahsildar is summoned, then explanation can be sought from him as to how the name of the petitioner is excluded or deleted. 5. It would be the purport of issuing witness summons either for production of documents or giving oral evidence. It is rightly observed by learned Judge that the certified copies can be made available. Application Exhibit - 81 is resorted to for roving enquiry as to how the petitioner's name is deleted from the record. This would not be proper procedure at this stage. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order. I cannot be oblivious of the fact that the suit of 2016 is still awaiting final conclusion. 6. The parties cannot solely depend upon the officers to corroborate their claim. If the proper care is taken, then the petitioner would have got knowledge about the circumstances in which name is being deleted. 7. I find no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] ZIP 2 of 2