1 WP / 4836 / 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1002 WRIT PETITION NO. 4836 OF 2022 JIVAN VINAYAK JAHAGIRDAR VERSUS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE AND ANOTHER WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6338 OF 2022 JEEVAN VINAYAK JAHAGIRDAR VERSUS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE AND ANOTHER ... Advocate for petitioner : Mr. K.B. Borde h/f. Mr. C.T. Jadhav Advocate for respondent no. 1 : Mr. K.S. Warad AGP for the respondent – State : Mrs. M.L. Sangit ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 13 JANUARY 2026 PER COURT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. 2. By way of writ petition no. 4836 of 2022, the petitioner assails the order dated 25.11.2021 passed below Exhibit – 482 and order dated 22.04.2022 passed below Exhibit – 494 by learned District Judge – 2, Jalgaon in Commercial Suit no. 1 of 2019. 3. In writ petition no. 6338 of 2022, the petitioner assails the order dated 14.07.2021 passed below Exhibit – 469 by the learned District Judge – 2, Jalgaon in Commercial Suit No. 1 of 2019. 2 WP / 4836 / 2022 4. The petitioner / original plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of amount wherein he tendered a list of witnesses at Exhibit – 468 for issuance of witness summons to the witnesses referred in that list. The learned trial Court issued witness summons to the witnesses mentioned in that list vide its order dated 14.07.2021. 5. Thereafter, on 24.06.2021, the original plaintiff / petitoner filed an application for a ‘notice to produce documents’ under section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 at Exhibit – 469, thereby requiring original defendant no. 1 / respondent no. 1 to produce documents. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Court on 14.07.2021 by citing that this Court has observed that the suit proceeding were to be conducted on day to day basis and no unnecessary adjournments could be allowed except for extremely compelling reasons and in exceptional cases and the petitioner was trying to delay the suit on frivolous grounds. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application below Exhibit – 482 was filed by the petitioner on 23.09.2021 wherein he prayed for issuance of summons to the Director of Marketing, Pune and the same was rejected by the learned trial Court by directing that the original plaintiff / petitioner shall file the affidavits of evidence of remaining witnesses simultaneously whose evidence was proposed to be led by him as per the first case 3 WP / 4836 / 2022 management programme. Subsequently, another application below Exhibit – 484 came to be filed by the petitioner with a prayer that he may be exempted from complying the order passed on Exhibit – 482 whereby he was directed to file affidavits of remaining witnesses. 7. One more application below Exhibit – 492 was filed with a prayer to issue witness summons to Mr. Dagadu Patil but the same was not pressed by the original plaintiff / petitioner. Thereafter, application below Exhibit - 494 was filed under Order XVI Rule 1 of the CPC for issuance of witness summons to the witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses at Exhibit – 468 (except the witness no. 1 / petitioner) and the same was also rejected on 22.04.2022. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that the learned trial Court had issued witness summons to the witnesses mentioned in the list tendered by petitioner at Exhibit – 468. Once the trial Court has already issued summons by an order at Exhibit – 468, there was no reason for the trial Court to reject the subsequent application at Exhibit – 494 which was for obtaining summons. It is not the case that the order passed below Exhibit - 468 was challenged and set aside rather the same is in operation. Therefore, the subsequent rejection of application at Exhibit - 494 for obtaining summons cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 4 WP / 4836 / 2022 9. While deciding the application below Exhibit - 482, the learned trial Court is directed the petitioner to file the affidavits of evidence of the remaining witnesses simultaneously. But it is for the plaintiff to lead the evidence of witnesses as per the list at Exhibit – 468. Therefore, the order passed below Exhibit – 482 is also not sustainable. 10. In view thereof, the writ petition no. 4836 of 2022 is allowed. The order dated 25.11.2021 passed below Exhibit – 482 and order dated 22.04.2022 passed below Exhibit – 494 by learned District Judge – 2, Jalgaon in Commercial Suit no. 1 of 2019 are quashed and set aside. The applications at Exhibit - 482 and 494 are allowed. 11. In writ petition no. 6338/2022, the learned trial court while deciding an application below Exhibit – 469 has reffered to the observation made by this court in writ petition no. 716/2020 wherein this court has directed the learned trial court to observe the time limit scrupulously in order to decide the matter and not to adjourn the matter except for extremely compelling reasons or in exceptional cases. The learned trial court further observed that petitioner was trying to delay the matter. 12. The learned trial court has failed to appreciate the aspect that the petitioner cannot proved his case unless he is allowed to examine the witnesses and produce relevant documents. The petitioner 5 WP / 4836 / 2022 shall be granted an opportunity in the interest of justice to call witnesses and examine them. Therefore, I am inclined to quash and set aside the order passed below Exhibit – 469. 13. In view thereof, the writ petition no. 6338 of 2022 is allowed. The order dated 14.07.2021 passed below Exhibit – 469 by the learned District Judge – 2, Jalgaon in Commercial Suit No. 1 of 2019 is quashed and set aside. The application below Exhibit – 469 is allowed. 14. It is clarified that only because application below Exhibit – 469, Exhibit- 482 and Exhibit- 494 are allowed, it does not mean that plaintiffs have proved their case and it is for the parties to prove the case by leading evidence. 15. The Commercial suit no. 1 of 2019 is pending since the year 2010 and this court has already directed in writ petition no. 716 of 2020 to conduct day to day hearing in the said suit. But it seems that for one or other reason the hearing of suit is protracted. 16. Therefore, learned trial court is directed to decide the suit within a period of six month from today. All the parties are expected not to seek unnecessary adjournments and not to file frivolous applications to protract the trial. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE arp/