Rekha Pramod Deshmukh vs Shri Gajanan Maharaj… — Writ and Judicial Review

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:13333

¶2

2811WP5689-25@Connected WPs.odt 1 Common Judgment

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5689 OF 2025

¶5

Rahul Ramkrushna Wadhokar, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Business, R/o Rokadiya Nagar, Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Through its Managing Trustee – Nilkanth Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana.

¶8

Rameshchandra Champalal Dangra, Aged about 55 years.

¶9

Chandulalji Kisanlalji Agrawal, Aged about 55 years.

¶10

Kishor Tryambakdas Tank, Aged about 50 years.

¶11

Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh, Aged about 55 years.

¶12

Shrikant Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 48 years.

¶13

Vishveshwar Shaligram Trikal, Aged about 60 years.

¶14

Pankaj Gajanan Shitut, Aged about 65 years.

¶15

All are trustees of Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana. RESPONDENTS

¶16

WITH

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO. 5693 OF 2025

¶18

Nitin Gajanan Padmane, Aged about 43 years, Occ. Business, R/o Near Gajanan Maharaj Temple, Western Gate, at Dhanuka Compound, Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana. PETITIONER

¶19

VERSUS

¶20

Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Through its Managing Trustee – Nilkanth Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana.

¶21

Rameshchandra Champalal Dangra, Aged about 55 years.

¶22

Chandulalji Kisanlalji Agrawal, Aged about 55 years.

¶23

Kishor Tryambakdas Tank, Aged about 50 years.

¶24

Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh, Aged about 55 years.

¶25

Shrikant Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 48 years.

¶26

Vishveshwar Shaligram Trikal, Aged about 60 years.

¶27

Pankaj Gajanan Shitut, Aged about 65 years.

¶28

2811WP5689-25@Connected WPs.odt 2 Common Judgment All are trustees of Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5695 OF 2025

¶29

Amar Arun Sharma, Aged 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o Bhairav Chowk, Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. PETITIONER

¶30

VERSUS

¶31

Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Through its Managing Trustee – Nilkanth Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana.

¶32

Rameshchandra Champalal Dangra, Aged about 55 years.

¶33

Chandulalji Kisanlalji Agrawal, Aged about 55 years.

¶34

Kishor Tryambakdas Tank, Aged about 50 years.

¶35

Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh, Aged about 55 years. 6. Shrikant Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 48 years.

¶36

Vishveshwar Shaligram Trikal, Aged about 60 years.

¶37

Pankaj Gajanan Shitut, Aged about 65 years. All are trustees of Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5699 OF 2025 Dnyaneshwar Trambak Sakhare, Aged 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o Sai Nagar, Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. PETITIONER

¶38

VERSUS

¶39

Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Through its Managing Trustee – Nilkanth Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana.

¶40

Rameshchandra Champalal Dangra, Aged about 55 years.

¶41

Chandulalji Kisanlalji Agrawal, Aged about 55 years.

¶42

Kishor Tryambakdas Tank, Aged about 50 years.

¶43

Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh, Aged about 55 years.

¶44

Shrikant Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 48 years.

¶45

Vishveshwar Shaligram Trikal, Aged about 60 years.

¶46

Pankaj Gajanan Shitut, Aged about 65 years.

¶47

2811WP5689-25@Connected WPs.odt 3 Common Judgment All are trustees of Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5703 OF 2025 Vidhya Vijay Bawaskar, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Business, R/o Kumbhar Wada, Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. PETITIONER

¶48

VERSUS

¶49

Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Through its Managing Trustee – Nilkanth Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana.

¶50

Rameshchandra Champalal Dangra, Aged about 55 years.

¶51

Chandulalji Kisanlalji Agrawal, Aged about 55 years.

¶52

Kishor Tryambakdas Tank, Aged about 50 years.

¶53

Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh, Aged about 55 years.

¶54

Shrikant Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 48 years.

¶55

Vishveshwar Shaligram Trikal, Aged about 60 years.

¶56

Pankaj Gajanan Shitut, Aged about 65 years. All are trustees of Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana. RESPONDENTS WITH

¶57

WRIT PETITION NO. 5705 OF 2025

¶58

Harish Shyamsundar Wadhokar, Aged 43 years, Occ. Business, R/o Jagdamba Nagar, Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. PETITIONER VERSUS

¶59

Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Through its Managing Trustee – Nilkanth Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana.

¶60

Rameshchandra Champalal Dangra, Aged about 55 years.

¶61

Chandulalji Kisanlalji Agrawal, Aged about 55 years.

¶62

Kishor Tryambakdas Tank, Aged about 50 years. 5. Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh, Aged about 55 years.

¶63

Shrikant Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 48 years.

¶64

Vishveshwar Shaligram Trikal, Aged about 60 years.

¶65

Pankaj Gajanan Shitut, Aged about 65 years.

¶66

2811WP5689-25@Connected WPs.odt 4 Common Judgment All are trustees of Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5706 OF 2025

¶67

Vanmala Tulshiram Sonone, Aged 65 years, Occ. Business, R/o SBI Colony, Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. PETITIONER

¶68

VERSUS

¶69

Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Through its Managing Trustee – Nilkanth Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana.

¶70

Rameshchandra Champalal Dangra, Aged about 55 years.

¶71

Chandulalji Kisanlalji Agrawal, Aged about 55 years.

¶72

Kishor Tryambakdas Tank, Aged about 50 years.

¶73

Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh, Aged about 55 years.

¶74

Shrikant Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 48 years.

¶75

Vishveshwar Shaligram Trikal, Aged about 60 years.

¶76

Pankaj Gajanan Shitut, Aged about 65 years. All are trustees of Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5734 OF 2025

¶77

Rekha Pramod Deshmukh, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Business, R/o Deshmukh Pura, Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. PETITIONER

¶78

VERSUS

¶79

Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Through its Managing Trustee – Nilkanth Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana.

¶80

Rameshchandra Champalal Dangra, Aged about 55 years.

¶81

Chandulalji Kisanlalji Agrawal, Aged about 55 years.

¶82

Kishor Tryambakdas Tank, Aged about 50 years.

¶83

Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh, Aged about 55 years.

¶84

Shrikant Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 48 years.

¶85

Vishveshwar Shaligram Trikal, Aged about 60 years.

¶86

Pankaj Gajanan Shitut, Aged about 65 years.

¶87

2811WP5689-25@Connected WPs.odt 5 Common Judgment All are trustees of Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5737 OF 2025

¶88

Gajanan Gourishankar Bhartiya, Aged 47 years, Occ. Business, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. PETITIONER

¶89

VERSUS

¶90

Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Through its Managing Trustee – Nilkanth Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana.

¶91

Rameshchandra Champalal Dangra, Aged about 55 years.

¶92

Chandulalji Kisanlalji Agrawal, Aged about 55 years.

¶93

Kishor Tryambakdas Tank, Aged about 50 years.

¶94

Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh, Aged about 55 years.

¶95

Shrikant Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 48 years.

¶96

Vishveshwar Shaligram Trikal, Aged about 60 years.

¶97

Pankaj Gajanan Shitut, Aged about 65 years.

¶98

All are trustees of Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5738 OF 2025

¶99

Jagdish Bhumilal Bhartiya (Deceased) through LRs

¶100

Kalawati Jagdish Bhartiya, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Business.

¶101

Anil Jagdish Bhartiya, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Business.

¶102

Ganesh Jagdish Bhartiya, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Business. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 R/o Ghandhi Chowk, Shegaon, Tq. Shegon, Dist. Buldana.

¶103

Savita Pawan Bhartiya, Aged about 45 yrs., Occ. Housewife, R/o Chikhali, Tq. Chikhali, Dist. Buldana. PETITIONERS

¶104

VERSUS

¶105

Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Through its Managing Trustee – Nilkanth Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana.

¶106

Rameshchandra Champalal Dangra, Aged about 55 years.

¶107

2811WP5689-25@Connected WPs.odt 6 Common Judgment

¶108

Chandulalji Kisanlalji Agrawal, Aged about 55 years.

¶109

Kishor Tryambakdas Tank, Aged about 50 years.

¶110

Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh, Aged about 55 years.

¶111

Shrikant Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 48 years.

¶112

Vishveshwar Shaligram Trikal, Aged about 60 years.

¶113

Pankaj Gajanan Shitut, Aged about 65 years.

¶114

All are trustees of Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana.

¶115

RESPONDENTS

¶116

WITH

¶117

WRIT PETITION NO. 5739 OF 2025

¶118

Rekha Purushottam Karale, Aged 60 years, Occ. Business, R/o Near Burje Patil Wada, Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana. PETITIONER

¶119

VERSUS

¶120

Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Through its Managing Trustee – Nilkanth Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana.

¶121

Rameshchandra Champalal Dangra, Aged about 55 years.

¶122

Chandulalji Kisanlalji Agrawal, Aged about 55 years.

¶123

Kishor Tryambakdas Tank, Aged about 50 years.

¶124

Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh, Aged about 55 years.

¶125

Shrikant Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 48 years.

¶126

Vishveshwar Shaligram Trikal, Aged about 60 years.

¶127

Pankaj Gajanan Shitut, Aged about 65 years.

¶128

All are trustees of Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana.

¶129

RESPONDENTS

¶130

WITH

¶131

WRIT PETITION NO. 5741 OF 2025

¶132

Ganesh Ramesh Deshmukh, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Business, R/o Fule Nagar, Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Dist. Buldana.

¶133

PETITIONER

¶134

VERSUS

¶135

Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Through its Managing Trustee – Nilkanth Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana.

¶136

Rameshchandra Champalal Dangra, Aged about 55 years.

¶137

Chandulalji Kisanlalji Agrawal, Aged about 55 years.

¶138

2811WP5689-25@Connected WPs.odt 7 Common Judgment

¶139

Kishor Tryambakdas Tank, Aged about 50 years.

¶140

Ashok Tryambakrao Deshmukh, Aged about 55 years.

¶141

Shrikant Shivshankar Patil, Aged about 48 years.

¶142

Vishveshwar Shaligram Trikal, Aged about 60 years.

¶143

Pankaj Gajanan Shitut, Aged about 65 years.

¶144

All are trustees of Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, C/o Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana. RESPONDENTS

¶145

Shri J.B. Gandhi, counsel for the petitioner in all the petitions. Shri A.R. Patil, counsel for the respondents in all the petitions.

¶146

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATE ON WHICH ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD : NOVEMBER 26, 2025 DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCWED : NOVEMBER 28, 2025

¶147

JUDGMENT

¶148

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents in all the cases. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶149

All these petitions involve same controversy and deal with identical orders passed by the trial Court in the identical suits filed by the respondents against individual persons seeking their eviction and possession under Section 16(1)(c)(g) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, the Act of 1999’). Since the counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents are same in all the petitions and they have advanced common arguments, all these petitions are decided by this common judgment.

¶150

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by

¶151

the trial court rejecting their applications under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') for direction to plaintiff to produce documents on record.

¶152

2811WP5689-25@Connected WPs.odt 8 Common Judgment

¶153

For the sake of convenience, the facts of Writ Petition No.5689 of 2025 are being taken into consideration. The petitioner is the original defendant in the suit filed by the respondents under Section 16(1)(c)(g) of the Act of 1999 seeking eviction and possession. The petitioner has filed his written statement in the civil suit and the suit is at the stage of evidence of plaintiff’s second witness. In the midst of cross examination of the plaintiff's second witness Deepak Leeladhar Patil, the defendant has filed the application at Exhibit 206 under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code for directions to the plaintiff to produce documents about which reference is made during the cross examination of the witness. The plaintiff has submitted his reply dated 02.04.2025 and opposed the application. After hearing contentions of both the parties, the trial Court has rejected the said application by order dated 21.08.2025. The petitioner has raised a challenge to this order by way of instant petition.

¶154

Shri J.B. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of answers given by the plaintiff’s second witness in cross examination, it became clear that there are certain documents available with the plaintiff with respect to the status of the defendant which are required to be produced on record. He submitted that the plaintiff’s witness has made reference to certain receipt books, agreement as well as account books of the year 197273 which are relevant to ascertain the actual status of the defendant. He therefore submitted that in view of the provisions of Order XI Rule 14 of the Code directions need to be issued to the plaintiff to produce on record all the documents referred by the said witness.

¶155

Per Contra, Shri A.R. Patil, learned counsel for the respondents strenuously submitted that the petition is meritless and deserves to be

¶156

2811WP5689-25@Connected WPs.odt 9 Common Judgment dismissed with costs. He submitted that the petitioner who is the defendant in the civil suit has filed an elaborate written statement and there are no pleadings with respect to the documents of the year 1972-73. As such, in absence of pleadings, the said documents may not at all be relevant for deciding the controversy involved in the suit. He submitted that the suit filed by the defendant under Section 16(1)(c)(g) of the Act of 1999 seeking eviction and possession is based on the registered agreement of leave and license dated 28.06.2011 which is duly signed and executed by both the parties. He submitted that the suit will be decided on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the documents already submitted on record. He therefore submitted that the petitioner-defendant has failed to make out any case for invoking the provisions of Order XI Rule 14 of the Code. By inviting attention to the reasons recorded by the trial Court, he justified the impugned order.

¶157

Rival contentions thus fall for my consideration.

¶158

It has to be noted that the respondent has filed the suit for eviction and possession under Section 16(1)(c)(g) of the Act of 1999 and the suit is based on the registered document of leave and license executed by both the parties. The defendant has filed elaborate written statement taking a stand that his signature was obtained on the agreement by coercion and undue influence and he has asserted his status as tenant. There are no pleadings in the written statement about any document in nature of receipts or account books or agreement of the year 1972-73. As such, the defendant has taken this stand in the suit which will be required to be proved by him on the basis of his pleadings and evidence. It is pertinent to note, the evidence in the suit has commenced and the plaintiff has examined its second witness, whose cross-

¶159

2811WP5689-25@Connected WPs.odt 10 Common Judgment examination is going on. Although while answering certain questions during cross-examination this witness has stated that there are documents of the year 1972-73 in the nature of receipts and agreements however, the same would not be relevant for deciding the controversy, particularly because the suit is based on the registered document of leave and license executed by both the parties in the year 2011. Apart from this, the defendant has not at all put up any case in his written statement that his status has to be decided on the basis of documents of the year 1972-73, neither he has pleaded that those documents are in custody of the defendant. As such, it becomes clear that the defendant is seeking direction to produce documents only with an intention to explore new factual aspects about working of the plaintiff-Trust and inquire into the affairs of the administration of the plaintiff-Trust. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the controversy involved in the suit can be adjudicated on the basis of those documents.

¶160

In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to the pleadings in the written statement with respect to certain events of the year 1972-73 mentioning that the family members of the petitioner-defendant are having possession of the shop in question since that period and certain receipts with respect to donation were issued by the Sansthan at the relevant time. Perusal of the averments in the written statement in this regard show that while narrating the facts about possession of shop in the year 1972-73, reference is made to certain donation receipts, however there are no specific pleadings with respect to status of the defendant or reference to any specific agreement depicting their status. In absence of any foundation in the pleadings with respect to the documents

¶161

2811WP5689-25@Connected WPs.odt 11 Common Judgment sought to be produced, I am of the firm view that the application at Exhibit 206 deserved to be rejected. Pertinent to note, the defendant has not filed any application under Order XI Rule 12 of the Code seeking discovery of documents. The application under consideration invoking Order XI Rule 14 of the Code is also filed in the midst of the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s second witness and that too without there being any foundation in the pleadings.

¶162

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial Court has given due consideration to the relevant factual and legal aspects. Pertinently, the impugned order deals with the contentions advanced by the parties, the provisions of law and the judgments relied upon and finally records inferences that the application is filed to prolong the suit. The impugned order is well reasoned and does not need interference on any count.

¶163

A perusal of the documents on record and contentions advanced shows that the petitioner-defendant has submitted several other applications during adjudication of the civil suit and they are contested tooth and nail. It appears that since the defendant is in possession of the shop premises since long, filing of various applications is clearly an attempt to prolong the matter. In the backdrop of several orders in litigations between the parties, passed by trial Court and this Court and the overall conduct of the defendant, even the application under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code filed by defendant, which is under consideration, appears to be an instance to prolong the civil suit. Hence, I am of the opinion that the application deserved to be rejected with costs.

¶164

2811WP5689-25@Connected WPs.odt 12 Common Judgment

¶165

Having regard to the above mentioned factual and legal aspects, no case is made out for indulgence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, having regard to the controversy involved, it is desirable that the civil suits are decided expeditiously. Hence, it is directed that the suits filed by respondents against the petitioners, in which the impugned orders are passed, be decided within a period of six months from the date of this judgment.

¶166

The writ petitions deserve to be dismissed and the same are dismissed

¶167

with costs.

¶168

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

¶169

APTE

¶170

Signed by: Apte Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 02/12/2025 14:57:39

Rekha Pramod Deshmukh v. Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Thr. Managing Trustee - Nilkanth S. Patil and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekha Pramod Deshmukh v. Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan, Thr. Managing Trustee - Nilkanth S. Patil and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lavish Shriramji Kude Vs Moreshwar Chintaman Sor

Chandramani S/O. Suryabhan Belekar Vs Gayatri W/O. Chandramani Belekar (Ku. Gayatri Jagdish Wasnik)

Sheikh Afsheen Shoyab @ Afsheen Shoyab Sheikh Vs Returning Officer, Municipal Council, Narkhed, Nagpur and Others

Madhuri Murari Madavi vs Returning Officer, Yavatmal Nagar Parishad, Yavatmal and Others

Avishkar Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Nagpur, Thr. Secretary, Pratibha N. Nagrare vs Smt. Surekha Wd/O Ashok Dhage and Others

Shantabai Vitthalrao Awagan vs the State of Maharashtra and Others