Suryanarayan Ramlal Yadav Since Decease Thr. Lrs vs Radhibai Atmaram Chaudhari and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Suryanarayan Ramlal Yadav Since Decease Thr. Lrs vs Radhibai Atmaram Chaudhari and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition disposed with liberty kept open to the Plaintiffs to file an application for leading secondary evidence once issues are framed under Order XIV of the Code, depending on the outcome of the Section 9-A issue; any such application to be decided by the learned Civil Judge on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations in the impugned order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioners-Plaintiffs may be permitted to lead secondary evidence notwithstanding that issues have yet not been framed under Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the decision on the issue framed under Section 9-A of the Code is awaited.

Court's answer

Liberty kept open to the Plaintiffs to file an application for leading secondary evidence in the event the issues are framed under Order XIV of the Code, depending upon the outcome of the issue framed under Section 9-A of the Code; the Writ Petition is disposed on that basis.

Ratio / Principle

If an application for leading secondary evidence is subsequently filed, the learned Civil Judge shall decide it on its own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations in the impugned order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, N.J. Jamadar, J.) disposed of with liberty kept open. Challenge to an order dated 13 August 2025 of the learned Civil Judge, Thane, rejecting the Petitioners-Plaintiffs' application for permission to lead secondary evidence. The application had been preferred pursuant to liberty granted by this Court by order dated 6 July 2018 in WP No.13687 of 2017, in the event issues were framed under Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Rejection rested on the grounds that the Order XIV issues were yet to be framed and the decision on the jurisdiction issue framed under Section 9-A of the Code (as applicable to Maharashtra as it then stood) was awaited. As the trial-court matter stood closed for orders on the Section 9-A issue, the parties agreed, and the Court directed, that the Plaintiffs retain liberty to renew the secondary-evidence application once Order XIV issues are framed, depending on the outcome of the Section 9-A issue; any such application is to be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations in the impugned order.

2025:BHC-AS:53946

22 wp 14503 of 2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.14503 OF 2025

Suryanarayan Ramlal Yadav (deceased) through legal heirs and Ors

... Petitioners

versus

Radhibai Atmaram Chaudhari and Ors.

… Respondents

Ms. Aditi Naikare for Petitioners.

Mr. Shanay Shah, Mr. Yohaan Shah, Mr. Hasan Mushabber, Mr. Hiral Shah, Ms. Divishada Desai i/by Negandhi shah and Himayatullah, for Respondent No.23.

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 9 DECEMBER 2025

P.C.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 13 August 2025

passed by the learned Civil Judge, Thane, whereby the application preferred by the Petitioners – Plaintiffs seeking permission to lead secondary evidence, came to be rejected.

The said application was preferred pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court by an order dated 6 July 2018 in WP No.13687 of 2017, in the event the issues are framed by the trial Court under Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

One of the reasons which weighed with the learned Civil Judge not to allow the Petitioners to lead secondary evidence was that the issues have yet

SSP 1/2

22 wp 14503 of 2025.doc

not been framed under Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the decision on the issue framed under Section 9-A of the Code, in its application to the State of Maharashtra, as it then stood, is awaited.

The Court is informed that the matter is closed for orders on the issue of jurisdiction framed under Section 9-A of the Code.

In these circumstances, learned Counsel for the parties agree that the Petitioners-Plaintiffs may have the liberty to file an application to lead secondary evidence in the event the issues are framed under Order XIV of the Code, depending upon the outcome of the issue framed under Section 9- A of the Code.

Keeping open the said liberty to the Plaintiffs to file an application for leading secondary evidence in the event the issues are framed under Order XIV of the Code, the Writ Petition stands disposed.

In the event, such an occasion arises and an application for leading secondary evidence is filed, learned Civil Judge shall decide the same on its own merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations in the impugned order.

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

SSP 2/2

Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 10/12/2025 11:21:49