1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7429 OF 2009 Shaikh Rashid Abdul .. Petitioner versus Sayyed Mustaq Salsuddin & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.R.V.Govilkar for the petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 2nd September 2009. JUDGMENT: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the order dated 13th August 2009 passed by the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes on 13th August 2009 by which witness summons has been issued. The said order has been passed on application at Exhibit 162. 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the order is patently illegal. He submitted that by the said order the trial Court has directed production of original register containing entries of the birth and death on the basis of which the certified copies have been issued. He invited my attention to the reply filed by the Pune Municipal Corporation 2 to the said application in which it is stated that there is nothing like original register and the entire record has been computerised. He pointed out that the record of birth and death is maintained by the Corporation on computer by electronic devices. He submitted that there was no occasion for the Court to direct production of the original register by the witnesses. He submitted that a witness who is summoned to produce documents cannot be cross- examined and the trial Court by the impugned order has permitted the cross- examination which is completely illegal. He submitted that the trial Court has even directed investigation or enquiry to be held in terms of prayer clause (c). He submitted that for proving electronic record, law provides a procedure and said electronic record can be proved by the procedure provided by law. 3. I have considered the submissions. Perusal of the impugned order shows that a witness summons was already issued to the Municipal Corporation for production of extract of birth register. The impugned order notes that as per the witness summons, extract of the birth register has been produced at Exhibit 161. The order also notes that the election petitioner has filed birth certificate of the third child of the petitioner and the said certificate is at Exhibit 106. The impugned order records that there is discrepancy in the contents of documents at Exhibit 161 and Exhibit 106. The nature of discrepancy is set out in the paragraph 4 of the order. In 3 paragraph 5 of the order, the learned Judge has observed that it is necessary to examine the authority who has issued two different certificates to enable the Court to find out the truth. Perusal of the order shows that the extract of birth register is already produced by the Municipal Authority in compliance with the summons issued by the Court. The said extract is at Exhibit 161. The impugned order makes it very clear that the witness summons has been issued to the concerned persons who had signed documents at Exhibit 161 and Exhibit 106. The trial Court by the impugned order has not directed the witnesses to produce any document. The witness summons had been issued only for deposing before the Court. It is also clear that the trial Court by the impugned order has not ordered any enquiry. The prayer for enquiry is obviously not granted by the trial Court. The only direction issued under the impugned order is of issuing witness summons to the persons concerned who have signed or issued the documents at Exhibit 161 and Exhibit 106. The trial Court has noted that both the documents relate to date of birth of the same person but there are discrepancies in the said documents at Exhibits 161 and 106 and therefore witness summons is ordered to be issued to the concerned persons who have signed the said documents. As witness summons is issued only for giving evidence, it is obvious that the said witnesses will have to be subjected to the cross-examination. 4. No interference is called for with the impugned order by which 4 witness summonses have been ordered to be issued to the persons who have signed the documents at Exhibit 161 and Exhibit 106. There was justification for issuing witness summons as some discrepancy was found in the contents of the documents at Exhibits 106 and 161. The object of issuing the summons is to bring the truth on record. The petitioner will not suffer any prejudice. Subject to what is observed above, petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)