Daruwalawadi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. vs Sita Wd/O Pukhraj Chunilal Bafna and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Daruwalawadi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. vs Sita Wd/O Pukhraj Chunilal Bafna and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition disposed with a clarification that admission of documents in evidence or their marking would not preclude the Plaintiff from contending that the documents so admitted and marked have not been duly proved or that the correctness of their contents has not been proved; the question of proof of documents, whether by primary or secondary evidence, remains open for adjudication by the learned Judge, City Civil Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Judge, City Civil Court erred in finding that only the documents at Sr. Nos.9, 24 and 26 were photostat copies, when photostat copies of other documents were also admitted and marked in evidence despite objection. +2 more

Court's answer

Upon inspection undertaken at the direction of the Court, there is now a consensus between the parties that the documents at Sr. Nos.9, 19, 21, 24 and 26 are photostat copies, correcting the trial court's finding that only the documents at Sr. Nos.9, 24 and 26 were photostat copies.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the consensus, the learned Judge, City Civil Court is required to pose unto himself the question whether the Defendants have led adequate secondary evidence in proof of the documents at Sr. Nos.9, 19, 21, 24 and 26, and to further decide whether the rest of the documents have been legally proved in evidence.

Key takeaways

Mere marking of a document is not proof of the document; although the impugned order observes that the issues of legality and admissibility of the documents are kept open, the learned Judge would also be required to consider the question of proof of the documents.ratio¶29
Admission of documents in evidence or their marking does not preclude the Plaintiff from contending that the documents which have been admitted and marked in evidence have not been duly proved or that the correctness of their contents has not been proved.ratio¶30
The question of proof of the documents, either by way of primary or secondary evidence, shall remain open for adjudication by the learned Judge, City Civil Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (N.J. Jamadar, J.) disposed Writ Petition No.1479 of 2026, in which Daruwalawadi Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. (Petitioner-Plaintiff) challenged a City Civil Court order dated 13 October 2025 admitting and marking the Defendants' documents in evidence on the finding that only the documents at Sr. Nos.9, 24 and 26 were photostat copies. Following inspection directed by the Court, the parties reached a consensus that the documents at Sr. Nos.9, 19, 21, 24 and 26 are photostat copies. Held: it is trite that mere marking of a document is not proof of the document; admission or marking of documents in evidence does not preclude the Plaintiff from contending that they have not been duly proved or that the correctness of their contents has not been proved; the question of proof of the documents, whether by way of primary or secondary evidence, remains open for adjudication by the learned Judge, City Civil Court.

903 wp 1479 of 2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.1479 OF 2026

Daruwalawadi Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.

... Petitioner

versus

SWAROOP SHARAD

PHADKE

Digitally signed by SWAROOP SHARAD PHADKE Date: 2026.03.12 20:01:04 +0530

Sita wd/o Pukhraj Chunilal Bafna and Ors.

… Respondents

Mr. Sanjeev Gorwadkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharati Mahant, Ms. Trupti Gage i/by Divya Shah Associates, for Petitioner.

Mr. Pradeep Thorat with Mr. Mutahhar Khan, Mr. Sanket Mungale, Mr. Yash Dhankad i/by Pratik K. Shah, for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

DATE : 10 MARCH 2026

P.C.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 13 October 2025,

whereby the learned Judge, City Civil Court has admitted and marked the documents tendered on behalf of the Defendants in evidence.

Learned Judge, City Civil Court, was of the view that, only the documents at Sr. Nos.9, 24 and 26 were the photostat copies and rest of the documents were original. Learned Judge, thus, admitted the documents in

evidence and marked them as exhibits subject to legality and admissibility.

The Petitioner – Plaintiff assailed the order on the ground that the

finding of the learned Judge that, only the documents at Sr. Nos.9, 24 and 26 were the photostat copies, is not correct. Photostat copies of the documents,

SSP 1/3

903 wp 1479 of 2026.doc

other than the documents at Sr. Nos.9, 24 and 26, were also admitted and marked in evidence, despite objection to the admissibility of those documents.

As the dispute between the parties primarily revolved around the aspect as to whether rest of the documents were original, the parties were directed to take inspection of the documents. Now there is a consensus that the documents at Sr. Nos.9, 19, 21, 24 and 26 are the photostat copies.

In this view of the matter, learned Judge, City Civil Court would be required to pose unto himself the question as to whether the Defendants have led adequate secondary evidence in proof of the documents at Sr. Nos.9, 19, 21, 24 and 26. The learned Judge would also be required to decide the question as to whether rest of the documents have been legally proved in evidence.

It is trite, mere marking of the document is not the proof of the documents. Though, in the impugned order, learned Judge has observed that the issue of legality and admissibility of the documents are kept open, yet, the learned Judge would be required to consider the question as to the proof of the documents as well.

The Writ Petition, thus, stands disposed with a clarification that the admission of documents in evidence or marking of the documents would not preclude the Plaintiff from contending that the documents which have been admitted and marked in evidence have not been duly proved or the

SSP 2/3

903 wp 1479 of 2026.doc

correctness of the contents thereof has not been proved. The question of proof of documents either by way of primary or secondary evidence shall,

thus, remain open for adjudication by the learned Judge, City Civil Court.

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

SSP 3/3