Dilip Raibhan Navale And Others v. Kalabai Asaram Navale And Another

2026:BHC-AUG:14270 1 938 WP 3409-2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 938 WRIT PETITION NO. 3409 OF 2026 DILIP RAIBHAN NAVALE AND OTHERS

VERSUS

KALABAI ASARAM NAVALE AND ANOTHER ...

Mr. Aniket P. Sonpethkar - Advocate for Petitioners ...

CORAM

: S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

DATE :

01.04.2026 PER COURT :

1.

The petitioners impugn the order dated 28.10.2025 passed below Exhibit-37 by 8th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, in Civil M.A. No. 2067 of 2023, whereby the application preferred by petitioners at Exhibit-37 seeking de-exhibition of documents (Exhibits 31 to 36) came to be rejected.

2.

The respondents have initiated proceedings for issuance of a heirship certificate under provisions of Bombay Regulation Act, wherein the petitioners are objectors. The respondents placed on record documents such as Aadhaar Card, Voter ID Card, PAN Card, bank passbook, certificate issued by the Multipurpose Society and heirship certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat. These documents were marked as Exhibits 31 to 36 during evidence of respondent. 3.

The petitioners thereafter filed an application at Exhibit-37 seeking

2 938 WP 3409-2026.odt de-exhibition of the said documents, contending that the deceased Asaram was unmarried and that the petitioners had taken care of him during his lifetime. It was further contended that on 17.03.2016, deceased had transferred and handed over possession of agricultural land in favour of the petitioners.

4.

Upon perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Trial Court rightly observed that Voter ID Card and PAN Card are documents issued by competent authorities. It is also an admitted position that the deceased Asaram expired on 02.03.2023. The Trial Court held that merely because the documents are exhibited, the same does not dispense with the requirement of proof. The Court further observed that it is open for the petitioners to lead evidence to contradict said documents and to establish their case. The contention that documents being fabricated or manipulated was held to be a matter of evidence. 5.

In that view of the matter, this Court finds that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners, as they have the opportunity to crossexamine the respondents. 6.

In the result, the petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. 7.

Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [ S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. ] Pooja Kale/