vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.231 OF 2008 APPEAL NO.231 OF 2008 APPEAL NO.231 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3206 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.1861 OF 2002 Dhirajlal Raishi Chheda & Anr. ... Appellants V/s. Raishi Shivji Chheda & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.V.Y. Sanglikar for Appellants Ms.Mamta Sodh a/w Mr.Jitendra Shukla for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 CORAM: S.B. MHASE & S.B. MHASE & S.B. MHASE & SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. DATED: JULY 8, 2008 JULY 8, 2008 JULY 8, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard Mr.Sanglikar. The order passed in Notice of Motion No.3206 of 2007 in Suit No.1861 of 2002 is under challenge in this appeal. It is a dispute between the brothers so also the father of the plaintiffs. They are the members of a joint family and they have entered into a settlement dated 25.6.1993. Now the dispute is in respect of the said settlement. The respondents plaintiffs have contended that the signatures on the said settlement had been obtained by the appellants by making certain misrepresentations and, therefore, the respondents have filed the present suit. It appears that one of the properties is in possession of the appellants and the appellants claim tenancy of the : 2 : premises on the basis of the settlement, for which they have filed a suit in the Small Causes Court which is pending. While the proceedings were going on in both the Courts, the parties have produced certain documents in the suit in the Small Causes Court. However, the plaintiffs-respondents preferred a Notice of Motion to call those original documents from the Small Causes Court. It appears that the plaintiffs have approached the India Security Press, Nasik for examination of certain documents but the said press communicated to the plaintiffs that unless the originals are produced, the comparison cannot be made. Basically, the comparison of the stamps is to carried out coupled with signatures on the document. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly exercised the jurisdiction and called for the record from the Small Causes Court. 2. The grievance of the learned counsel for the appellants is that if those original documents are called in this suit, then the trial Court will be incapacitated to consider those documents. This contention and the belief of the appellants is ill founded. Whenever the original documents are called in another proceedings, the rules and practice provide that true copies duly signed and/or xerox copies shall be maintained on the record of that Court and the original documents should be submitted to the Court which has : 3 : invited them. We find that the larger issues of the dispute between the parties are covered by the suit pending on the Original Side of this court. On the contrary, the issue of tenancy is under consideration of the Small Causes Court and, therefore, it is appropriate to consider the documents in this Court and the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the Notice of Motion are just and proper which requires no interference from this Court. 3. The learned Counsel for the Appellants relies on the judgment in the case of N.Srihari by L.R.s & Ors. v/s. N. Prakash & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 1548. AIR 2008 SC 1548. AIR 2008 SC 1548. We have gone through this judgment. This has no relevance to the facts of the present case. 4. Appeal is, therefore, rejected. (NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (S.B. MHASE, J.)