1 wp2139-11 jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2139 OF 2011 Hasmukh Gala and another .. Applicants/Petitioners Versus M/s Rose Garden-II C.H.S. Ltd and others .... Respondents Mr. Y. S. Jahagirdar, Senior counsel a/w Mr. R. A. Thorat and by Mr. P. J. Thorat for the applicants/petitioners. Mr. M.S. Menon i/by Mr. A.A. Siddique & Associates for Respondent no.1 CORAM : R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 26th September, 2011 P. C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate Mr. Menon waives service of notice on behalf of respondent no.1. By consent, petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith as respondent no.1 is the only contesting respondent.. 2. Respondent no.1 herein has filed L. C. Suit No.1705 of 2009 in the City Civil Court, Mumbai for diverse reliefs. In the said suit, respondent no.1 took out Chamber Summons No. 561 of 2009 for reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (i). The said Chamber Summons was contested by the petitioners. It was heard and the learned Judge of the 2 wp2139-11 City Civil Court, by order dated 17th February, 2011, decided the said Chamber Summons by granting it partly and out of the so many prayers, ranging from Prayer clause (a) to (i), the learned Judge granted prayer clauses (a), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i). Directions were also given in the operative part of the order keeping in view the grant of the aforesaid prayers. 3. I have extensively heard the learned advocates for both the sides. 4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Jahagirdar, at the outset, submitted that the petitioners would like to rely upon various documents, which are referred to in the affidavit in reply and permission was sought to refer to those documents at the time of hearing of the Notice of Motion as well as the Suit. If this is the stand of the petitioners, surely they will have to give inspection of those documents and to that extent the learned Judge of the City Civil Court was right. One does not know why the Chamber Summons was required to be filed for seeking inspection of the documents which are referred to in the affidavit in reply, as in the normal course, persons against whom such documents are being used would demand inspection through advocate and in the normal course, the said inspection would be granted. Be that as it may, since the petitioners intend to rely on those documents, they will have to 3 wp2139-11 give inspection of those documents and to that extent, no interference is required in the impugned order. 5. Learned Senior counsel Mr. Jahagirdar pointed out that his clients are also aggrieved on account of grant of prayer clauses (e), (h) and (i). I have heard the learned Advocates on the question of challenge to the grant of reliefs in terms of the aforesaid clauses. By prayer clause (e), the respondent No.1 has sought names and addresses of the partners of Petitioner no.2 right from 1984 till 2009 as well as relevant documents concerning the deed of partnership. Respondent no. 1 has also called for certificate of registration along with other details relating to the development of the suit property. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Menon appearing for respondent no.1 submitted that all the information sought in prayer clause (e) is necessary to effectively prosecute the suit. 7. After having considered the scope of the Suit as also the reliefs sought in terms of prayer clause (e), I hold that the respondent no.1 would need names and address of of the such persons who were acting as partners of the petitioner No.2 i.e. original defendant no.6, on the date of the institution of the suit. This is necessary as the respondent no.1 could join those persons as defendants, if they are already not on 4 wp2139-11 record. Demand of respondent no.1, to that extent, is right. At the same time, the demand of other items and information is unnecessary and as such, it cannot be granted. To that extent, the reliefs granted in terms of prayer clause (e) shall will have to be moulded as indicated above. 8. So far as as clause No. (h) is concerned, it appears that according to respondent no.1, there are certain premises owned by defendant nos. 5 and 6 in the very property in relation to which the suit is pending. Respondent no.1 wants the plans, duly sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation prior to 20 years, as referred to in Para (2) of the affidavit in reply. In my view, this information is certainly not required. If at all the respondent no.1 is interested in getting such information, they are free to approach the Municipal Corporation by making appropriate application. Undoubtedly, if the Corporation can, as per their rule furnish that information, the Corporation would be able to do so and to that extent, the grant of relief as per prayer clause (h) was not proper. to that extent order 17th February, 2011 will have to be set aside. 9. So far as by prayer clause (i) is concerned, the respondent no.1 wants inspection of the documents relating to the payment of property taxes and water charges of the office of defendant no.6 as referred to in 5 wp2139-11 para 11 of the affidavit and copies thereof. Surely, if the petitioners are relying upon certain documents, as referred to in their affidavit, the petitioners will have to give inspection. If no specific documents are relied upon, the respondents would able to get the information from the concerned Corporation similar to the one as mentioned above, as regards prayer clause (h). Hence, grant of relief in terms of prayer (i) was not proper and order dated 17th February 2011 will have to set aside to that extent. 10. With the aforesaid discussion, the petition is disposed of by passing the following order : (i) No interference is required in the order dated 17th February, 2011 passed in Chamber Summons No. 561 of 2009, so far as prayer clauses (a), (c), (f) and (g). (ii) The reliefs granted to the Respondents in terms of prayer clause (e) is substituted and it is hereby ordered that the petitioners shall supply to respondent no. 1, the information as regards names and addresses of the persons who were partners of defendant no.6 on the date of institution of suit. This information shall be supplied by defendant no.6 through their advocate i.e. to say, the Advocate for Petitioners shall, on his 6 wp2139-11 letterhead, furnish particulars and give it to the Advocate for Respondent no.1 so that the authenticity of the said information would not be doubted. This be done within 10 days from today. (iii) Order granting reliefs, so far as prayer clauses ( h) and (i) in the Chamber Summons is concerned, is set aside. If the respondent no. 1 wants certain information regarding sanction of plan or payment of Municipal Taxes or water charges, they are free to approach the corporation. If the rules of the corporation provide for supply for such information, surely the corporation shall do so. (iv) There shall be no order as to costs. (v) It is further ordered that whatever documents on which the petitioners are relying upon in support of their affidavit in reply, the petitioners shall furnish the inspection of the same on or before 5th October, 2011. (R. Y. GANOO, J.)