((-1-)) ms t IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2713 OF 2008 Subhash Dattatraya Karle Petitioner versus Geeta Vishwanath Uplap & ors. Respondents Shri S.S.Kini i/by Suresh Dubey for petitioner. CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATE : 11th June 2008 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Despite service none appears for respondents. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Petition is disposed of finally by consent. 2. This petition is preferred against order dated 5th February 2008 passed below Exhibits 105 and 107 in Special Civil Suit No.128 of 1998 by the Court of IInd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for producing documents that were not disclosed in the beginning. By the impugned order the application was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.S.S.Kini draws attention of the Court to the application made by the petitioner. In the ((-2-)) application the petitioner states that he came across certain important documents while going through the old records. The documents consist of counter foils of cheques issued to respondent no.1-original plaintiff and other defendants by the father of the parties. The petitioner also desires to produce original pass book to show withdrawal/encashment of the cheques. According to the petitioner, these documents go to the root of the case and are necessary to decide the controversy between the parties. 3. The petition arises out of a suit for partition filed by the respondent no.1 of a property standing in the name of mother of the parties. The defence taken up by the petitioner before the Trial Court is that though the property stands in the name of the mother, it was, in fact, purchased by the father by taking loan therefor. According to the petitioner, this property has been bequeathed by the father to him. He has obtained probate of the will made by the father bequeathing the property in his favour. Since that is the defence taken up by the petitioner the documents now sought to be produced cannot ((-3-)) be relevant. It appears that the petitioner wants to take up additional defence that the respondent no.1-original plaintiff-his sister, was paid money by the father in lieu of her share in the property. In that case it is necessary for the petitioner to first get the defence on record by amending the written statement. 4. When this is pointed to Mr.Kini, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, he submits that the petitioner be allowed to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to file an application for amending the written statement 5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for non prosecution with liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the Trial Court for amending the written statement, which will be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in the order. (SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.)