Bombay High Court
Ajay Amrutlal Bora vs Shashikala Popat Bora And Others on 16 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:29525
1 wp12013.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 WRIT PETITION NO. 12013 OF 2025
AJAY AMRUTLAL BORA
VERSUS
SHASHIKALA POPAT BORA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar
...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 16.10.2025
PER COURT:
1. This court issued notice on 15.10.2025 and made it
returnable on 12.11.2025 and till the next date it was directed that
the trial court may adjourn the suit. However, it was not brought to
the notice of this court by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the suit is expedited by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order
dated 22.01.2025. This court also did not notice that the matter is
expedited and the said fact is mentioned in the impugned order of
the trial court at para 10. This court on noticing the fact that the
matter has been expedited by the Hon'ble Supreme Court again
listed the matter today high on board for hearing. Accordingly, the
matter is listed today and heard. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has substantially argued the matter today.
2 wp12013.2025
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the plaintiff /
petitioner filed the suit seeking declaration and possession of the
suit property and injunction restraining the defendants. It is
contended by the petitioner that the suit property bearing final plot
no.17 of village Chahurana Budurk within the limits of
Ahmednagar Municipal Council admeasuring 1110 Sq.Ft. having
two storey building is owned by defendants no.1 to 4 and that the
plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 4 are the members of the Bora
family. The family is having ancestral business of agricultural
equipment, pesticides, seeds etc. The suit property was originally
owned by one subhashchand Kundanmal Bora and it was sold out
in the year 1990 to Popatlal Ganeshlal Bora. It is stated that the
suit property was in possession of the partnership firm and after
dissolution of the partnership firm the property remained with the
plaintiff. The plaintiff is occupying and utilizing the suit property
for his shop. The plaintiff's name is recorded in Municipal Council,
shop license is in the name of brother of plaintiff. It is stated that
defendants no.1 to 4 are having their own business in the market
yard and they have no right over the suit property and that the
defendants have admitted the hostile possession and ownership of
the plaintiff over the suit property.
3 wp12013.2025
3. The orders passed in interim relief application filed in
the suit were carried upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court, on 22.01.2025 in SLP filed by the respondent /
defendant passed the following order:
" ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. ...
3. This, in our considered view, was done on the premise
that the respondent herein was occupying the premises,
which factually, as we are now informed, was not correct. It
is undisputed that, at this point in time, it is the petitioner
herein who is in possession of the suit premises.
4. ...
5. In the attending facts and circumstances, we dispose
of the present petition with the following terms:
a) The impugned judgment and order dated
19.04.2022 in W. P. No.3943 of 2022, passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at
Aurangabad is quashed and set aside.
b) Hearing in the Special Civil Suit No.159 of 2021
is expedited.
c) The parties undertake to fully cooperate and
not take any unnecessary adjournments.
d) We request the trial court to decide the suit
preferably within a period of nine months from today.
e) The parties shall appear before the trial Court
on 25.02.2025.
f) During the pendency of the trial, the status quo,
as on today, in terms of the order expressed supra
shall be maintained with regard to the property in
question.
g) All contentions are left open.
4 wp12013.2025
6. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of."
4. While the suit was at the stage of evidence, the plaintiff
filed application at Exhibit-98 seeking direction for calling the
witness of the municipal authority to prove the licence issued
under the shop act and also the municipal taxes paid. The said
application was opposed by the defendants and it was rejected by
the learned trial court by order dated 09.05.2025 holding that the
plaintiff intends to examine 15 witnesses as mentioned in the
application which is opposed by the defendants. The plaintiff
petitioner filed a petition challenging the said order in Writ Petition
No.8822 of 2025. Notice is issued by this court on 22.07.2025 and
is pending consideration.
5. After closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, the
defendants filed an application at Exhibit-111 for summoning the
officer from the municipal corporation to prove the payment in
respect of municipal taxes paid by him of the year 2016-2017 and
the Bank Manager of Union of India for proving payment made to
Ahmednagar Municipal Corporation in respect of municipal taxes
The said application is allowed by order dated 28.07.2025.
6. While the officer of the Municipal Corporation was being
examined as defendant witness, application was filed by the
5 wp12013.2025
plaintiff at Exhibit-121 directing the witness of defendant no.2 to
file revision register and all the documents brought by the witness
in court. It is stated that the witness has brought the documents
relating to tax payments and the same has to be filed by him on
record as the scope of cross-examination is very vast and in the
summons application at Exhibit-111, it is mentioned that the
witness has to produce all the relevant documents and accordingly
prayer is made to file revision register and all the documents
brought by the witness. The said application is rejected by the trial
court by holding that the witness summons were issued to the
officer of municipal corporation for bringing certified copies of
receipt AS/37931 for the year 2016-17 of Rs.34,459/- and the
relevant record and to the Branch Manager of the Union Bank of
India for bringing account statement in respect of payment made
through cheque bearing No.0404259. The witness is called upon to
prove the said receipts and not to deposit the entire register which
he has brought along with him. The court has also observed that
the application filed by the plaintiff earlier to summon witness has
also been rejected and considering the same dismissed the
application filed by the plaintiff seeking direction to deposit the
register bought by the municipal officer.
6 wp12013.2025
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
register and other record brought by the municipal officer is
relevant for his case as it would indicate the taxes paid by him and
the same would be available in the register. It would also prove his
possession over the property. He submits that the cross-
examination cannot be limited to the document produced at the
instance of the defendants and he can request officer to deposit all
the record brought with him in the court.
8. The submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is without merit. The municipal officer was present to
prove receipt no.AS/37931 for the year 2016-17 of Rs.34,459/- and
he cannot be directed to file all the record which he has brought at
the instance of the plaintiff. The record brought by the witness
would cover range of documents which may not be relevant for the
case. The production of the register by the corporation officer
would be speculative and not relevant to the case of plaintiff. The
plaintiff has to prove his case by filing tax receipts and for proof of
the same summons can possibly be issued. In absence of tax
receipts produced by the petitioner, a speculative inquiry cannot be
conducted at the instance of the plaintiff.
9. Considering the above, no case is made out.
7 wp12013.2025
10. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]
marathe
