Admission of documents in evidence does not equate to their proof, and litigants retain the right to contest the validity of evidence despite prior admissions.

ORDER :

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails an order dated 11^th November, 2025 whereby the learned Judge, City Civil Court admitted the documents in evidence, and a subsequent order dated 15^th November, 2025 in Miscellaneous Application No. 226/2025 whereby the said application preferred by the petitioners/original defendants for review of the first order dated 11th November, 2025, came to be dismissed.

2. Mr. Surel Shah, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that, the learned Judge, City Civil Court admitted the documents in evidence, by way of secondary evidence, though no foundation was laid in the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the plaintiffs witness (PW No. 1). In the process the learned Judge, unjustifiably ignored the glaring inconsistencies in the case of the plaintiffs in regard to the proper custody of the documents, and whether the documents qualified as secondary evidence. Mr. Shah would urge, though a notice under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act was given to the defendants, yet, no effective opportunity to respond to the said notice was provided to the defendants and the documents were admitted in evidence on the ground that such notice was given to the defendants.

3. An earnest endeavor was made by Mr. Shah to draw home the point that, the observations of the learned Judge in the order dated 11^th November, 2025 leave no scope for the challenge on behalf of defendants even to the proof of the documents. It was further submitted that, though no reasons for admission of the documents, by way of secondary evidence, have been recorded in the order dated 11^th November, 2025, the Review Application came to be rejected on an untenable ground that the objections were not raised while marking the documents.

4. In opposition to this, Ms. Kothari, the learned Counsel for respondents/plaintiffs, submits that, the Writ Petition against the impugned order does not deserve to be entertained. The challenge is to the procedural orders passed by the learned Civil Judge and a writ of certiorari is not the remedy, unless it could be demonstrated that, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction, perverse or manifest an error of law apparent on the face of record. Even a mere error of law is not sufficient. To this end, Ms. Kothari placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in the cases of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences & Ors. Vs. Bikartan Das & Ors, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 996., Malleeswari Vs. K. Saguna & Anr, SLP (C) No. 12787/2025., Full Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia Vs. Subodh Mody , 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 886, and Bhartiben Shah & Ors. Vs. Gracy Thomas & Ors., 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 98 and a Division Bench judgment in the case of Naresh Sundarlal Jain Vs. Udaipur Entertainment World Pvt. Ltd. & Anr, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2107

5. Ms. Kothari would urge, the learned Judge, City Civil Court has recorded adequate reasons for admitting the documents in evidence. Review of the said order was wholly misconceived as there was neither any error apparent on the face of record nor any other sufficient cause. The petitioner sought to review the order by urging grounds which were not at all put forth, when the documents were marked in evidence.

6. At the outset, it is necessary to note that, the order dated 11^th November, 2025 whereby the learned Judge marked the documents cannot be said to be sans reasons. The learned Judge observed, inter alia, that PW No. 1 had deposed that, none of the originals were traceable and t