1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1500 OF 2008 Joybroto S. Biswas & Anr. .. Petitioners Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Narula i/b.Jhangiani Narula & Associates for petitioners Mr.Bhor for B.M.C. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 7th March 2008 P.C. . Mentioned not on board. By consent taken up for disposal. Mr.Bhor appearing for original 2 defendant Nos. 1 to 3 could not dispute that the report dated 25th August 2004 has been marked for identification. 2. Mr.Narula for petitioners states that save and except this document, copy of which is already marked for identification, no other document is sought to be produced or relied upon. Original report is with the Corporation and all that is requested by the plaintiffs is that the same be directed to be produced. A witness summons be issued for production of these documents was the only request. 3. After perusing the petition and the annexures thereto, including impugned order, I am of the opinion that the learned Judge was not right in rejecting this request. It is not as if the petitioner plaintiff desired to produce further documents. They seek issuance of witness summons to produce original report, a copy of 3 which is marked for identification. In the peculiar facts of this case, this request should have been granted. 4. Accordingly, the order under challenge to the extent it refuses request of plaintiffs to issue witness summons to the Corporation to produce the original report dated 25th August 2004 is concerned, the same shall stand quashed and set aside and substituted as under:- ".The Corporation to produce the original report dated 25th August 2004 upon receipt of witness summons by the trial court. The trial court to take necessary steps and direct issuance of summons for production of this report from the custody of the authorised officer. Petition disposed of." 4 (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)