A document list alone does not place documents on record without a production application.

The petitioners challenged the Small Cause Court, Vadodara’s order dated 3 January 2026 below Exhibit 93 in Small Cause Suit No. 2526 of 2016, contending that the court had marked the list of documents but had not taken the documents themselves on record

Before the High Court, their counsel conceded that no separate application seeking permission to produce the documents had been filed; the petitioners maintained that an application to exhibit the documents was pending

Whether the trial court erred in not taking the documents listed at Exhibit 93 on record when the petitioners had not filed a separate production application

Whether the petitioners could seek permission to produce those documents by filing an appropriate application before the trial court

The petition was brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

It held that, where no production application had been filed, the trial court could not be faulted for not taking the documents on record; the petitioners remained free to make an appropriate application, which the trial court must decide after hearing the parties, in accordance with law and on its merits

The petitioners’ own concession that they had filed no separate production application meant that the trial court’s failure to take the documents on record could not, on that basis, be treated as an error

The High Court therefore did not determine the admissibility or production of the documents; instead, it left that question open for the trial court to decide on a properly filed application, independently of the impugned order and after hearing all concerned parties

It granted the petitioners liberty to file an appropriate production application and directed the trial court to decide it, after hearing the parties, in accordance with law and on its own merits, uninfluenced by the order dated 3 January 2026