Megha 22_wp_11605_2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11605 OF 2018 Mrunalini Pralhad Patil and Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Suryabhan Nanasaheb Dalvi and Ors. ...Respondents ________________ Mr. Dilip Bodake with Mr. Shreeniwas N. Magar for the Petitioners. Mr. Sanjay Kshirsagar with Mr. K.R. Kamble for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 30 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1) Petitioners are aggrieved by non-grant of permission by the Trial Court to prove the documents allowed to be produced by order dated 26 August 2015. It appears that by order dated 13 July 2015, Petitioners/ Plaintiffs were granted opportunity to lead secondary evidence by imposition of costs, even though closure pursis was filed by them on 3 September 2013. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs filed list of documents vide Application dated 3 August 2015 and sought to tender evidence to prove the same. The Trial Court allowed the Application partially by order dated 26 August 2015 by allowing production of documents, but rejected the prayer for filing of additional/ separate affidavit of evidence. Faced with this position, the Plaintiffs filed Application at Exhibit-133 seeking Page No. 1 of 3 30 September 2026 2026:BHC-AS:40176 Megha 22_wp_11605_2018 issuance of witness summons to the District Collector, Pune for proving the additional documents. That Application is rejected by order dated 25 January 2016 inter-alia on the ground that the Plaintiffs had already filed evidence closure pursis. 2) I have heard Mr. Bodke, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. Kshirsagar, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and have considered the submissions canvassed by them. 3) In my view, the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the Application at Exhibit-133. If filing of evidence closure pursis was to be a reason for not permitting to prove additional documents, the Trial Court ought not to have permitted the Plaintiffs to lead secondary evidence by order dated 13 July 2015 nor ought to have permitted production of documents by order dated 26 August 2015. Once permission is granted for production of documents, leave also needs to be granted to prove those documents. 4) Faced with the above situation, the Plaintiffs applied by filing Application at Exhibit-145 to exhibit the documents since they are public documents. Even that Application is rejected by order dated 12 September 2017. 5) For proving the contents of the documents, the Plaintiffs have filed additional affidavit of Plaintiff No.1. In my view, with a view to prevent any further delay, the Plaintiffs can be permitted to lead further evidence of Plaintiff No.2 at Exhibit-118. The Trial Court shall complete the process of recording further evidence of Plaintiffs’ witness within a Page No. 2 of 3 30 September 2026 Megha 22_wp_11605_2018 period of eight weeks. I have gone through the documents produced alongwith Exhibits-119 and 137. The documents appear to be correspondence of office of District Collector and office of Land Records. With a view to save time in summoning witnesses from both the offices, it would be appropriate that the said documents can be marked in evidence based on Plaintiff’s witness’s evidence since they appear to be public documents. The Suit is pending since the year 2007. If at this stage leave is granted to the Plaintiffs to summon witnesses from Government offices, the same would delay the Suit further. In my view, therefore it would be appropriate to set aside the order dated 12 September 2017 and permit exhibition of documents filed alongwith lists at Exhibits 119 and 137. However, for the negligent conduct of the Plaintiffs, who sought to produce those documents only after filing of evidence closure pursis, costs are required to be imposed on the Petitioners. 6) The Plaintiffs shall pay costs of Rs.30,000/- to the Defendants by depositing the same in the Trial Court within a period of four weeks with liberty to the Defendants to withdraw the same. Defendants would by at liberty to file additional affidavit of evidence if considered necessary in the light of additional evidence permitted to be produced by the Plaintiffs. 7) With the above directions, Petition is partly allowed and disposed of with costs as directed above. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 3 of 3 30 September 2026 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/10/2026 16:13:44