(1) 33wp437.25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 33 WRIT PETITION NO. 437 OF 2025 ANANT SHIVAJI SALUNKHE ….Petitioner VERSUS DNYANESHWAR JAGANNATH PATIL AND OTHERS …..Respondents Mr. M. K. Bhosale, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. A. R. Syed, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATE : 16th JANUARY, 2025 P. C. 1. Heard. 2. Issue notice to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 only. Mr. Syed, learned advocate waives service of notice for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. No notices are necessary for respondent Nos. 3 to 5 since they are co-defendant like petitioner in the suit. 3. This petition is filed against the order passed by the 1 of 4 2025:BHC-AUG:1429 (2) 33wp437.25 learned Civil Judge Junior Division allowing the application of the plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and allowed to produce on record the public documents like 7/12 extract, receipt of payment of charges etc. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submits hat the application was filed when the suit was at stage of final hearing. The suit is of 2012. Though the documents were in the knowledge of the plaintiffs deliberately those were not produced on record. It is only after closure of the evidence, now those documents are sought to be produced on record just to prolong the suit. 5. The learned advocate for the respondents opposes the petition. He submits that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner who is defendant No. 1. Other defendants have not challenged the order. The learned Trial Judge has rightly observed that the documents would go to root of the matter and therefore are material documents. The documents also would 2 of 4 (3) 33wp437.25 show the possession of the suit land. There is already issue framed about the possession over the suit property. Though the evidence is closed, the learned trial judge has reserved the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff-witness in respect of the said documents. Cost is also imposed of Rs.500/-. He thus submits that no case is made out calling interference at the hands of this court. 6. Considering the nature of the relief granted by way of impugned order, this court finds that it will not be proper to cause interference with the said order. At the most, grievance can be made about inconvenience likely to be caused, if documents are produced on record. Care care can be taken to compensate the defendants by directing to pay some more cost. The impugned order is thus modified. The cost of Rs.500/- is enhanced to Rs. 5000/-. Cost to be paid to the petitioner in the trial court within two weeks from today. 7. Since the suit is of 2012 the trial court is expected to 3 of 4 (4) 33wp437.25 decide the suit within three months from today. 8. No parties shall seek unnecessary adjournments in the suit. 9. The writ petition stands disposed off. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] VishalK/33wp437.25 4 of 4