Naresh Mohanlal Jaisawal and Others vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Yavatmal and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Naresh Mohanlal Jaisawal and Others vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Yavatmal and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with direction to respondent no.1 to permit the petitioners/applicants to produce two documents dated 18-09-1965, liberty to respondents to submit on those documents, and a direction to decide the pending Section 107 proceedings preferably within six months.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners could be permitted to place on record two documents dated 18-09-1965 whose production had been rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Yavatmal by order dated 15-09-2025 in the pending Section 107 tenancy proceedings.

Court's answer

Respondent no.1 (SDO, Yavatmal) is directed to allow the petitioners/applicants to place on record the two documents dated 18-09-1965; after their production, the respondents are entitled to make their respective submissions with respect to those documents.

Ratio / Principle

Noting that the parties are litigating since 1976 and are of advanced age, respondent no.1 is directed to decide the pending proceedings expeditiously, preferably within six months from receipt of a copy of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Tenancy - Production of documents - Writ Petition No.6220/2025, Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.), 13-01-2026 - Petitioners challenged order dated 15-09-2025 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Yavatmal rejecting their application to produce two documents dated 18-09-1965, being orders of the President, Lands Tribunal/Additional Tahsildar, Yavatmal dropping tenancy proceedings concerning the suit property - Documents were sought in proceedings under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 seeking quashment of the tenancy Tahsildar's order dated 18-03-2025, wherein respondents had filed a preliminary objection to maintainability - Held: respondent no.1 directed to allow the petitioners/applicants to place the two documents on record; respondents entitled to make submissions with respect thereto - Since parties are litigating since 1976 and are of advanced age, respondent no.1 directed to decide the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within six months - Writ petition disposed of.

1 wp 6220.25.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

Writ Petition No.6220/2025 Naresh and others V SDO Yavatmal and others

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions

and Registrar's orders

Mr. M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. J.B. Jaiswal, Advocate for resp. no.2, 3 and 9. Mr. Sundaram, Advocate for reps. nos.4 to 8. Ms Anjali Agrawal, Advocate for resp. nos.15 to 19. Mr. C.S. Dhore, Advocate for resp. Nos. 10 to 14. Mr. Joshi, AGP for resp. no.1. Mr. Deshpande, Advocate for Caveator.

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J . DATE : 13-01-2026.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned

Counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner has challenged order dated 15-09-2025 passed by respondent no.1/Sub-Divisional Officer, Yavatmal, rejecting the application for production of two documents.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have initiated proceedings under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, seeking quashment of order passed by the tenancy Tahsildar dated 18-03-2025. In the proceedings the respondents have appeared and they have filed preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application. It is pointed out that the petitioners/applicants in the said proceedings tried to file on record two documents both dated 18-09-1965 which are in the nature of orders passed by the President, Lands Tribunal/Additional Tahsildar, Yavatmal about dropping of the tenancy proceedings with respect to the suit property. It is pointed out that these two documents are

2 wp 6220.25.odt

relevant for deciding the controversy involved before the respondent no.1 and the petitioners/applicants ought to have been allowed to place the documents on record.

Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submit that the production of two documents could be allowed, however, the contentions with respect to the said two documents could be made subject matter of adjudication before the authority.

Having regard to this limited controversy, the petition needs to be disposed of by directing the respondent no.1 to allow the petitioners/applicants to place on record the two documents both dated 18-09-1965. After the documents are produced, the respondents are entitled to make their respective submissions with respect to the said documents. In view of this, writ petition is disposed of.

Having regard to the fact that the parties are litigating since 1976 and the parties are of advanced age, the respondent no.1 is directed to expeditiously decide the proceedings and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J. )

Deshmukh Signed by: Mr. S.Deshmukh Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 14/01/2026 18:36:15