27 wp 10786 of 2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10786 OF 2026 M/s. Vinayak Enterprises ... Petitioner versus M/s. Roma Builders Pvt. Ltd. … Respondent Mr. Karan Bhosale with Mr. O.A.Siddiqui, Ms. Vidya Polmore, Ms. Khushnoma Malik, for Petitioner. Ms. Jasmeet Kaur Virdi i/by SHS Chambers for Respondent. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 21 SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. A limited challenge in this Petition is to the observations made by the learned Civil Judge while recording the evidence of PW1, especially paragraph No.29, whereby while disallowing the questions in relation to the statements made in the adjournment application, the learned Civil Judge has observed that, referring those applications to the witness would be a sheer waste of time and that was not permissible under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. 3. The apprehension of Mr. Siddiqui is that the Petitioner would be disallowed from referring to 182 documents which the Plaintiff has relied upon. 4. Having regard to the nature of the observations, by which the Petitioner SSP 1/2 2026:BHC-AS:38884 27 wp 10786 of 2026.doc is aggrieved, it would be suffice to clarify that so far as the ruling by the learned Civil Judge that reference to the contents of the adjournment application is not concerned, the same does not warrant interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 5. However, those observations will not preclude the Petitioner from referring to the other documents during the course of the cross-examination of PW1, and, in the event, those documents are referred to and the aspect of relevancy of the questions put in relation to those documents arises, the learned Civil Judge may decide the same in accordance with law. 6. The Writ Petition stands disposed. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 2/2 Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 23/09/2026 14:55:57