1 FARAD CONSTITUTION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5240/2009 (Ind Synergy Ltd. .vs.. Hanuman Vitamins Foods Ltd.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE:- DECEMBER 03, 2009 Heard. By impugned order dated 12/8/2009 the trial court has directed the defendant to produce certain documents. The respondent-plaintiff stated that those documents are required by it for cross-examination of defendant. Learned Advocate Shri A.S.Kulkarni for petitioner states that an application dated 09/1/2009 as moved, did not satisfy the requirements of Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it was not supported by any affidavit and he further states that provisions of Order XI Rule 15 are also not applicable because those four documents are not mentioned anywhere in the pleadings by the petitioner. He further points out that the application was earlier directed to be re-heard and decided again as per judgment of this Court dated 04/5/2009 in Writ Petition No.979/2009. Inspite of that, on 12/8/2009, 2 the order came to be passed without hearing the petitioner. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh reported in A.I.R. 2004 A.P. 164 in the case of Madhavulu ..vs. boya Eshwaraiah in support of his contention. He states that impugned order does not contain any reasons. With his assistance, I have perused the papers. The civil suit before trial court is for recovery of damages and after closure of evidence of respondent-plaintiff, the defendant has filed examination-in-chief on record. At that stage, the plaintiff (present respondent) moved an said application and sought four documents pointing out that those documents are necessary for cross-examination. The impugned order shows that the court below heard, the learned Advocate for respondent-plaintiff and Advocate for present petitioner could not appear, though the matter was repeatedly called, the court thereafter issued notice to defendants to produce documents A to D as per the application. It is apparent that said order is passed on application itself after perusing the application and say as it expressly records. It also mentions that the High Court order dated 04/5/2009 is also perused by this Court. In the circumstances, I am not in a position to hold that the order is non-speaking order. Learned counsel for petitioner was, therefore, asked to point out any prejudice caused to petitioner- 3 defendant in the matter because of production of those documents. The learned counsel is not in a position to demonstrate any such prejudice at this stage. In the circumstances, with leave to petitioner to challenge said order after final adjudication in the civil suit, if called for, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE Diwale.