Bajirao Rajaram Patil vs Shantabai Sudhakar Mahajan
2016 Latest Caselaw 6113 Bom

                                                                         62_WP774916.odt


             
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 7749 OF 2016




                                                        
    Bajirao Rajaram Patil
    Age: 65 years, Occu.: Agri.,
    R/o Khirdi (B), Tq. Raver,




                                                       
    Dist. Jalgaon.                                             ..PETITIONER

                   VERSUS




                                                
    1.  Shantabai Sudhakar Mahajan
         Age: 52 years, Occu.: Agri.,ig
         R/o Nimbol, Tq. Raver,
         Dist. Jalgaon.
                                   
    2.  Lilabai Gambhir Mahajan
         Age: 60 years, Occu.: Household,
         R/o Patondi, Tq. Muktainagar,
         Dist. Jalgaon.
         


    3.  Sadashiv Kashiram Patil
      



         Age: 57 years, Occu.: Agri.,
         R/o Kirdhi (B), Tq. Raver,
         Dist. Jalgaon.





    4.  Gopal Bajirao Patil,
         Age: 35 years, Occu.: Agri.,
         R/o Khirdi (B), Tq. Raver,
         Dist. Jalgaon.                                        ..RESPONDENTS





                                         ....
    Mr. Milind Patil, Advocate for petitioner.
    Mr. M.G. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
                                         ....

                                          CORAM :  T.V. NALAWADE, J.

DATED : 17th OCTOBER, 2016

1 / 3

62_WP774916.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides

by consent for final disposal.

2. The petition is filed to challenge the order made on Exhibit

151 which is filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 28 of 2004 pending before the

Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raver. The application was filed for

permission to produce on record documents like extract of mutation and

712 extract in respect of suit lands. The Trial Court has rejected the

application by observing that due diligence was not shown and the

documents were produced at belated stage when the matter was ready for

final argument.

3. The suit is filed for relief of partition and admittedly the

mutations and 7/12 extracts are in respect of said agricultural lands.

Ordinarily it is the plaintiff who is expected to produce on record the

documents like 7/12 extract in respect of agricultural land as the relief of

partition is claimed and decree needs to be given in respect of agricultural

land on the basis of revenue record as the area is relevant and after that

the revenue authority under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure is

expected to consider the relevant things.

2 / 3

62_WP774916.odt

4. In view of these circumstances, the Trial Court ought to have

allowed the production of documents. However, it is made clear that the

defendant cannot be allowed to give oral evidence after production of

document which is revenue record. So the petition is allowed. Order

made by the Trial Court is set aside. The application field at Exhibit 151

for permission to produce the aforesaid records is allowed. Rule is made

absolute in those terms.

                                    ig              ( T.V. NALAWADE, J. )
    SSD
                                  
           
        






                                         3   /  3