Dismissed¶25

Sundar Marutrao Gadade v. the State of Maharashtra through Collector and Others

Bombay HC20 Jan 2026WP/14268/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order 41 Rule 27 CPC additional evidence; sale deed; certified copy and secondary evidence; mutation entries; prior sanction of Collector for transfer of agricultural land; Regular Civil Suit No.408 of 2012; Regular Civil Appeal No.57 of 2018; District Judge Ambajogai; Exhibit-11; writ petition rejected; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; S.G. Chapalgaonkar J.; 20 January 2026.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is basically challenging the order of the revenue authorities pertaining to mutation entries; the issue of title of the plaintiff was not the subject matter of the suit. ¶20

Sundar Marutrao Gadade vs the State of Maharashtra through Collector and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code to produce a sale deed as additional evidence in Regular Civil Appeal No.57 of 2018 ought to have been allowed. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The petitioner is basically challenging the order of the revenue authorities pertaining to mutation entries; the issue of title of the plaintiff was not the subject matter of the suit.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Although the suit was dismissed for want of prior sanction of the Collector for transfer of agricultural land in favour of the petitioner, production of the sale deed was not necessary for that purpose or for decision of the appeal.

¶20

Key takeaways

The petitioner could not satisfactorily explain why the sale deed was not produced before the Trial Court; having merely averred that his brother possessed the sale deed, he could have produced a certified copy and secured permission to lead secondary evidence, and the explanation offered cannot be countenanced.ratio¶24
The reasons adopted by the Appellate Court are just and proper and no jurisdictional error was brought to the notice of the Court; accordingly the writ petition stands rejected.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, S.G. Chapalgaonkar J., 20 January 2026), Sundar Marutrao Gadade v. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector and Others — The petitioner's application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to produce a sale deed as additional evidence in Regular Civil Appeal No.57 of 2018 had been rejected by the District Judge, Ambajogai (order dated 08.10.2025 below Exhibit-11 in R.C.S. No.408 of 2012). Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court held that the underlying suit challenged revenue-authority orders on mutation entries and the issue of the plaintiff's title was not its subject matter; since the suit was dismissed for want of prior sanction of the Collector for transfer of agricultural land, production of the sale deed was unnecessary. The Court further held that the petitioner failed to explain why the sale deed was not produced at trial, when he could have produced a certified copy and sought permission to lead secondary evidence. Finding the Appellate Court's reasons just and proper and no jurisdictional error, the writ petition was rejected.

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:2640

¶2

934-wp-14268-2025.odt

¶3

(1)

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 14268 OF 2025

¶6

Sundar Marutrao Gadade

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State Of Maharashtra Through Collector And Others

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Gopal D. Kale h/f Mr. Nagargoje Mahadeo V.

¶10

AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. M.K. Goyanka

¶11

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

¶12

DATED : JANUARY 20, 2026

¶13

PER COURT :-

¶14

Heard.

¶15

Present petition takes exception to order dated 08.10.2025 passed in R.C.S. No.408 of 2012 below Exhibit-11 by District Judge, Ambajogai, whereby petitioner’s application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code for production of sale deed by way of additional evidence is rejected.

¶16

The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No.408 of 2012 before Civil Judge Senior Division, Ambajogai seeking relief that orders passed by revenue authorities are illegal and without jurisdiction and for issuing direction to restore mutation entries as were before passing of impugned order. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. Petitioner filed Regular Civil Appeal No.57 of 2018 before District Judge at Ambajogai. In that appeal, he filed an application

¶17

934-wp-14268-2025.odt

¶18

(2)

¶19

seeking permission to lead additional evidence by producing sale deed. The Appellate Court rejected application by impugned order dated 08.10.2025 observing that suit has been dismissed on the ground that prior sanction of Collector mandated for transfer of agricultural land was not obtained. Therefore, production of sale deed would be unconsequential for decision in appeal. It is further observed that petitioner could not lay foundation to fulfill requirements under Order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code.

¶20

Having considered submissions advanced by learned advocates appearing for respective parties and prayers in suit, it can be observed that petitioner is basically challenging order of revenue authorities pertaining to mutation entries. The issue of title of plaintiff was not subject matter of suit. It is true that suit has been dismissed for want of prior sanction of Collector for transfer of agricultural land in favour of petitioner, however, for that purpose, production of sale deed is not necessary.

¶21

Apart from that, petitioner could not satisfactorily explain as to why sale deed was not produced before Trial Court. It was simply averred that there was a dispute between him and his brother. His brother was in possession of sale deed and same was not made available. In that contingency, petitioner could have produced certified copy of sale deed and secured permission for leading

¶22

934-wp-14268-2025.odt

¶23

(3)

¶24

secondary evidence. The explanation as sought to be given cannot be countenanced.

¶25

In that view of the matter, the reasons adopted by Appellate Court are just and proper. No jurisdictional error is brought to the notice of this Court. Hence, writ petition stands rejected.

¶26

(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

¶27

Mujaheed//

Sundar Marutrao Gadade v. the State of Maharashtra through Collector and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundar Marutrao Gadade v. the State of Maharashtra through Collector and Others

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

Similar cases

Yogesh Bhanudas Shinde and Another vs Gomathiben Laddhabhai Patel Died Thr Lrs Mohan Laddhabai Patel and Others

Bhagwat Narayan Khandapure vs the Additional Commissioner 1 and Others

Surekha Jagan Takte vs Neha Akshay Takte

Khalik Osman Shaikh vs Hajju Husain Shaikh Thr Poa Mohammad Hajju Shaikh and Others

M.S. Karan Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad vs Employees Provident Fund Organization Thr the Asst. Provident Fund Com. Aurangabad

Bhagabai Ananda Patil through Next Friend Prakash Ananda Patil vs Ujwal Jagdish Patil and Others