Dismissed¶¶25

Diwakar Madhavrao Dubbewar (Dead) Thr. Lrs., Abhishek Diwakar Dubbewar v. Anil Madhavrao Dubbewar

Bombay HC14 Nov 2025WP/4775/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Diwakar Madhavrao Dubbewar (dead) through LR Abhishek Diwakar Dubbewar v. Anil Madhavrao Dubbewar; WP No. 4775 of 2024, Bombay HC Nagpur Bench, decided 15.12.2025 by Prafulla S. Khubalkar J.; Article 227; production of additional documents; Exhibits 230 and 234; order dated 22.04.2024; suit of 17.08.1999; declaration and injunction; documents sought during cross-examination; no reasons or due diligence; 25-year-old suit; final arguments stage; prejudice to defendant; writ dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Because the documents were sought to be produced only during cross-examination of the defendant, allowing the applications would prejudice the defendant by depriving him of the opportunity to lead/cross-examine with respect to those new documents. ¶¶24

Diwakar Madhavrao Dubbewar (Dead) Thr. Lrs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court rightly rejected the plaintiff's two applications (Exhibits 230 and 234) for filing additional documents, i.e., whether the documents were necessary for deciding the controversy and whether denial of the opportunity to file them caused injustice warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶¶18

Court's answer

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

Since the suit had reached the stage of final arguments, allowing the plaintiff to file new documents would amount to reverting back to the stage of evidence.

¶¶24

Key takeaways

The applications gave absolutely no reasons why the documents were not filed earlier despite the suit being contested for about twenty-five years, disclosed no due diligence, appeared casual, and did not state details of the documents or their relevance/necessity for complete adjudication; hence they deserved rejection.ratio¶¶20
The trial Court's impugned order showed due consideration of the factual and legal aspects and was a reasoned order rejecting the applications; therefore no indulgence was warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench; PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) — dismissed. The petition challenged the trial Court's common order dated 22.04.2024 rejecting the plaintiff-petitioner's two applications (Exhibits 230 and 234) for filing additional documents in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed on 17.08.1999. Holding: the applications were made only during cross-examination of the defendant, so allowing them would prejudice the defendant by depriving him of the opportunity to deal with the new documents; with the suit at final arguments, admitting fresh documents would revert it to the evidence stage; the applications gave no reasons or due diligence for the 25-year delay, did not detail the documents or their relevance, and appeared casual. The trial Court's rejection was a reasoned order deserving no interference. Petition dismissed with no order as to costs; Rule discharged.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:14691

¶2

1512WP4775-24.odt

¶3

1 Judgment

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 4775 OF 2024

¶6

Diwakar Madhavrao Dubbewar (Dead) through LR’s Abhishek Diwakar Dubbewar, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Service, R/o G-202, Godrej Central, Shankar Nagar-1, Shel Colony Road, Chembur East Mumbai-400071.

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Anil Madhavrao Dubbewar, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o Dubbewar Layout, Pusad, Tq. Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal.

¶10

RESPONDENT

¶11

Shri K.S. Narwade and N.S. Shiralkar, counsel for the petitioner. Ms Shaad F. Mirza, counsel for the respondent.

¶12

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATE : DECEMBER 15, 2025

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶14

RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

The petitioner takes exception to the common order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the trial Court rejecting the two applications filed by the petitioner for filing additional documents.

¶16

The petitioner is the original plaintiff who has filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction in which the defendant has appeared and evidence had commenced. At the stage of evidence, the plaintiff filed two applications vide Exhibits 230 and 234 seeking permission to file additional documents on record which were resisted by the defendant alleging lack of specific reasons and by order dated 22.04.2024 the applications came to be rejected.

¶17

1512WP4775-24.odt 2 Judgment

¶18

The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, the documents sought to be filed by the plaintiff are necessary for deciding the actual controversy involved in the suit and denial of opportunity to file the documents would cause injustice.

¶19

The petition is strongly opposed by the counsel for the respondent who submitted that the suit was filed in the year 1999 and the applications to file additional documents is filed in 2023-2024 without mentioning any reasons and hence the same are rightly rejected by the trial Court. She also submitted that now the suit has reached the stage of final arguments and allowing the plaintiff to file additional documents at this stage would definitely cause serious prejudice to the rights of the defendant.

¶20

While considering the controversy involved in the suit, it has to be seen that the suit was filed on 17.08.1999 which is being contested by both the parties on merits. At the stage of cross-examination of defendant, the plaintiff has filed applications for permission to file additional documents. Pertinent to note, these documents were not filed before evidence of the plaintiff and attempting to file the documents during cross-examination of the defendant would deprive him of an opportunity to lead evidence with respect to those documents. Further, a perusal of application at Exhibit 230 shows that there are absolutely no reasons as to why the documents were not filed earlier, even though the parties have been contesting the suit for a period of about twenty five years. The applications did not mention any reasons to disply due diligence on the part of plaintiff and the applications appear to be casual. The applications also do not mention the details of

¶21

1512WP4775-24.odt

¶22

3 Judgment

¶23

the documents sought to be produced and their relevance or necessity for complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit.

¶24

In view of the fact that the documents were sought to be filed at the stage of cross-examination of the defendant, I am of the firm opinion that allowing such application would cause prejudice to the defendant since he would be deprived of an opportunity to conduct cross-examination with respect to the new documents. Further, considering the fact that now the suit has reached the stage of final arguments, allowing the plaintiff to file new documents would amount to reverting back to the stage of evidence. Undisputedly, the suit is pending since last more than twenty five years and the plaintiff has failed to furnish any reasons, much less due diligence for production of the said documents. Hence, the applications deserve to be rejected. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial Court has given due consideration to the factual and legal aspects and by a reasoned order, rejected the application.

¶25

In view of the above mentioned factual and legal aspects, no indulgence is warranted with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

¶26

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

¶27

APTE

¶28

Signed by: Apte Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 22/12/2025 10:31:38

Diwakar Madhavrao Dubbewar (Dead) Thr. Lrs., Abhishek Diwakar Dubbewar v. Anil Madhavrao Dubbewar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Diwakar Madhavrao Dubbewar (Dead) Thr. Lrs., Abhishek Diwakar Dubbewar v. Anil Madhavrao Dubbewar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kashinath S/O. Chandu Satharkhar (Dead) Thr. Lrs., Eknath S/O. Kashinath Satharkar (Died) and Ors. Vs Ramchandra Marotrao Narad

Madan S/O Chintaman Rathi Vs Mujaffarkha Murtuzakha Pathan

Md. Yunus Opai S/O. Abdul Aziz Opai and Ors. vs M/S. 4 Wall Developers, Partnership Firm, Thr. Managing Partner, Sanjay Manohar Bhoot and Anr.

V.I.D.C. Thr. Executive Engineer, Lower Wardha Canal Division, Wardha Vs Bajrang Motiramji Kundalwar and Others

Tata Aig General Insurance Co.Ltd., through Its Branch Manager, Chandrapur vs Ratnamala Wd/O Arvind Raut and Others

The Branch Manager, Magma Hdi General Insurance Co. Ltd. Nagpur vs Ramakant S/O Pandurangli Kadyalwar and Others