(1) 6.WP7256.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 7256 OF 2026 Shri Bhartesh Nanakchand Jain VERSUS Smt. Shakuntala W/o Shrinandan Jain And Others. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for the Petitioner(s). CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE , J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2026. 1. Heard. 2. The present petition is filed under Articles 229 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The present petition challenges order dated 27.07.2026 passed below Exh. 45 in Special Civil Suit No. 708/2014 by the 22nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, as also order passed below Exh. 49 on 06.01.2026 at Annexure-2 by the 23rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur. 3. The facts, which are more or less undisputed, are as under: a) The petitioner, who is the original plaintiff, filed Special Civil Suit No. 708/2014 seeking a declaration regarding the alleged Will dated 28.08.1985. As the trial progressed, an application was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the defendant to produce the original Will. The trial Court passed an order on 17.06.2017 observing that since the defendant is not ready to produce the Will as sought, the plaintiff is at liberty to prove the same as per rules and law. Shubham 2026:BHC-NAG:13357 (2) 6.WP7256.26 b) This prompted the petitioner herein to challenge the said order by filing a writ petition before this Court. This Court, vide order dated 24.07.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 4812 of 2017, directed the defendant, i.e., the respondents herein, to produce the original Will dated 28.08.1985 on record within two months. It also imposed costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) on the respondent/defendant, the said costs to be paid to the petitioner/plaintiff. It is the contention of Mr. M. R. Joharapurkar that, in spite of these directions, the Will was not produced within such time as stipulated. c) In the meanwhile, the original defendant, Nilay Shrinandan Jain, expired on 11.06.2021. Thereafter, the legal representatives filed an application before this Court; however, the said application was withdrawn on 29.04.2025. It is pertinent to note that the said Civil Application was filed in the disposed writ petition bearing W.P. No. 4812 of 2017. It is the contention of Mr. M. R. Joharapurkar that, in spite of there being considerable delay, the costs were deposited on 27.07.2026. In the meanwhile, it is seen from the record that an order came to be passed below Exh. 49 on 15.12.2025 observing that a photostat copy of document is filed without seeking permission to file document or mentioning the document in the list. 4. In the backdrop of these facts, the present petition is filed. The only contention which is raised by Mr. M. R. Joharapurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that since there is a considerable delay, the trial Court ought not to have allowed applications at Exh. 45 and Exh. 49 and that too without calling for any reply from the petitioners. It is the Shubham (3) 6.WP7256.26 primary contention of Mr. M. R. Joharapurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, that admittedly the costs were not paid as directed by this Court and an opportunity to put forth his side was not granted by the trial Court before the said Will was taken on record. The contention seems to be misconceived and mischievous and only to delay his own suit. 5. Even though, belatedly, the trial Court has permitted the production of the Will. Interestingly enough, and as is borne out of the record, there was an application initiated by the defendant for production of the Will. The Will is now produced on record and therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner that the said Will is being produced belatedly or the cost as directed by this Court is deposited by way of pursis. The argument, apart from being hyper-technical in nature, is misconceived. 6. Writ petition is therefore dismissed. 7. At this stage, Mr. M.R. Joharapurkar, seeks stay of the impugned order has he needs to approach the Hon’ble Apex Court. The request is rejected. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) Shubham