Shri Sachin Patil vs Shri. Ratiram Meshram

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

By way of this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the common order dated 16.02.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur, in Civil Suit No. 727 of 2014, whereby Petitioners application for setting aside evidence close order passed on 26.11.2025 and application for cross-examination was rejected.

The factual matrix giving rise to the present Petition is that the Petitioner is the original defendant in Special Civil Suit 727 of 2014 filed by the Respondent of the present petition for declaration possession and permanent injunction. It is the case of Respondent that agreement to sale was executed between Petitioner and Respondent on 14.10.2010 for total consideration of Rs 26,00,000/- for the suit plot No. 11 Mouza Somalwada, Nagpur.

The Respondent in the civil suit claims that physical possession of suit property was not given to Petitioner and Petitioner took forcible possession and constructed rooms in the said suit property leading the Respondent herein to file the special civil suit. In the said civil suit Respondent has examined 4 witnesses and placed on record the copy of Bayanapatra but Petitioner failed to examine any other witnesses and failed to produce the original agreement on record. Consequently, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order dated 16.02.2026.

I have heard, Shri R.N. Borwankar, learned Counsel for Petitioner and A.B. Moon, learned Counsel for Respondent.

Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that Trial Court erred in rejecting the production of the original Agreement to Sale (Bayanapatra) on mere technicalities, thereby closing the opportunity to bring the true facts on record. Further he submits that since photocopies of the agreement (Exh. 83 and 83-A) are already on record and its execution is admitted in the pleadings, placing the original on record causes no prejudice to the Respondent.

Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that the evidence in Trial Court was closed without the Petitioner’s knowledge due to the fault of the previous Counsel, which cannot be attributed to Petitioner, therefore, the Trial Court was wrong to hold that the application was filed to delay the proceedings.

As can be seen from the memo of petition, three orders below three applications, i.e., Exhibit 112, 113, and 114 is challenged. The said order is a common order whereby all applications are rejected. Exhibit 112 was an application for setting aside order of closure of evidence passed on 26.11.2025, while Exhibit 113 was seeking permission to cross-examine the witness of the plaintiff and Exhibit 114 was in respect of permission to file documents. As far as application at Exhibit 112 is concerned, the only reason which has weighed with the Trial Court while rejecting the said application is that the defendant herein is prolonging the matter. The same reason has weighed while rejecting application at Exhibit 113. In my view, the said applications could have been allowed by imposing some costs on the defendant.

However, as far as application below Exhibit 114 is concerned, the same is for production of documents. While rejecting the said application in paragraph No. 4 of the impugned order, the Trial Court has rightly observed that the defendant has availed all necessary opportunities to conduct cross-examination of the witness of the plaintiff, and the deposition of defendant is also recorded. Furthermore, the plaintiff has also sought to admit or deny the contents, and the defendant till date has not made any attempt for the same. In my view, therefore, rejection of Exhibit 114 is correct.

In that view of the matter, following order is passed:

Writ petition is partly allowed.

ii) The order passed below Exhibit 112 and 113 are set aside, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in the ‘Public Welfare Account’ bearing No. 129712010001014, IFSC Code UBIN0812978, Union Bank of India, Branch High Court, Civil Lines, Nagpur, within two weeks from the date of this order.

iii) However, as far as rejection of application at Exhibit 114 is concerned, the order is maintained.

iv) Admittedly, the suit out of which the orders arise is of 2014. Looking at the pendency of the suit for more than 12 years, it is directed that the trial Court shall decide the suit within six months from the receipt of this judgment.

Writ petition is partly allowed. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.