1 WP 5686/10 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5686 OF 2010 Mrs. Kalpana Gandhi .. Petitioner V/s Jayant Marutirao Dhanwatey & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. G.S. Godbole with Mr. D.G. Aras i/b Aras & Co. for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 3RD AUGUST 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 17 June 2010 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai, rejecting the chamber summons of the petitioner for a direction to the respondent to produce 7 documents listed in the chamber summons. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not press any relief as to the documents at sr. nos. (v) and (vi) of the chamber summons because he has a 2 WP 5686/10 right to produce their certified copies. Without expressing any opinion as to such right, the statement is accepted. As regards the documents at sr. no. (vii) of the chamber summons, the documents are non-specific. Hence, the request for production of the documents mentioned in sr. no. (vii) of the chamber summons cannot be granted and is rejected. 4. As regards the documents at sr. nos. (i) to (iv) of the chamber summons, the documents are ration card, proof of gas connection, telephone bill and passport of the plaintiff-respondent. For the purpose of considering whether these documents at all are relevant and/or necessary for the decision of the suit, it is necessary to refer to a few facts. 5. Respondent nos.1 to 3 claim to be the owners of a flat situated in the respondent no.4 cooperative society. One room in the said flat forms subject matter of the suit (for short “the suit premises”). Respondent nos.1 filed a suit against the petitioner for eviction from the suit premises on the ground that she was a trespasser. The petitioner resisted the suit contending that she had become the owner of the suit premises by adverse possession. 3 WP 5686/10 6. According to the petitioner-defendant, she wanted the respondent-plaintiff to produce the original documents to show that the respondent resides and at the relevant time was residing at Hyderabad. The question where the respondent resides or was residing when the petitioner came in possession of the suit premises is immaterial for the decision of the suit. That is not the matter in issue. Perusal of the issues also shows that the question where the respondent-plaintiff was residing when the petitioner came in possession of the suit property has not been framed. The issue does not arise from the pleadings. In the circumstances, the documents about the alleged residence of the respondent at Hyderabad are not relevant for the decision of the suit. In my opinion, the trial court committed no error in rejecting the application. The writ petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)