1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1393 OF 2009 AND CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 58 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 2110 OF 2004 Mrs. Ramila R. Kilachand ....Plaintiff Versus Mr. Harsh Rajnikant Kilachand & Ors. ....Defendants Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin a/w. Mr. M. V. Tambori and Ms. Sushma Nagaraj i/b. Bharucha & Partners, Advocates for the Plaintiff. Mr. B. Saraf i/b. Kishore Thakordas & Co., Advocates for Defendant No. 106. Mr. Mahesh Shukla, Advocate i/b. M/s. Desai & Diwanji, Advocate for Defendant Nos. 50 to 53. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : 10th MARCH, 2010. P.C. : Heard learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 106. 2. The chamber summons no. 1393 of 2009 is taken out by the Plaintiff for direction to Defendant No.106 to provide full and complete inspection to him alongwith copies of all documents referred to and relied upon by 2 Defendant No. 106 in his affidavit in reply to the notice of motion. The chamber summons no. 58 of 2010 is taken out by Defendant No.106 for direction to the Plaintiff to provide full and complete inspection to him of all the documents referred to and relied upon by the Plaintiff in the above suit. 3. Mr. Behramkamdin, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the suit is for partition and separate possession and Defendant No.106 is a purchaser of one of the joint family property from Defendant No.99 and therefore, Defendant No.106 is not entitled to have inspection of all the documents referred to in the plaint. Mr. Saraf, learned Counsel for Defendant No.106 on the contrary submits that the Plaintiff in view of the provisions of Rule 15 read with Rule 18 of Order 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is required to give inspection of documents referred to in the plaint to the Defendants. He submits that if the Plaintiff gives inspection of documents referred to in the plaint, then Defendant No.106 is ready and willing to give inspection of documents referred to in his affidavit in reply to the notice of motion to the Plaintiff. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendant No.106 and having gone through the relevant provisions of law, I am of the opinion that both the chamber summons deserves to be allowed. Under the provisions of Rule 15 of Order 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the 3 parties to the suit are entitled to give notice to any other party, in whose pleadings and affidavit reference is made to any document, to produce such document for inspection of the party giving notice, and any party not complying with such notice shall not afterwards get any liberty to put any document on evidence on his behalf in such suit, unless he shows some excuse to the satisfaction of the Court. Under Rule 18 of Order 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 where the party served with notice under Order 15 objects to give inspection, then, the Court on application of the party desiring it, make an order for inspection in such place and in such manner as it may deem fit. Under proviso of Rule 18, the Order for inspection shall not be made when the Court is of opinion that it is not necessary for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs. 5. In order to prove case, the Plaintiff has to produce and prove documents relied upon in the plaint. If that be so, there will be no prejudice to the Plaintiff, if the inspection of the documents relied upon in the plaint is given to Defendant No.106. It is true that the suit is for partition and separate possession and the Defendant No.106 claims to be a purchaser of some of the joint family property from Defendant No.99 who is the member of alleged joint family property. In my view, in such kind of suit, the Plaintiff will have to prove that the property purchased by Defendant No.106 is joint family property and consequently he has undivided share. The Defendant 4 No.106 is also entitled to show that the Defendant No.99 has an authority to sell the property in question. The question of nucleus will also be important in this regard. In such circumstances, I feel that inspection of the documents referred in the plaint to the Defendant No.106 is necessary for fair disposal of the suit. The party asking for inspection can be directed to bear cost of photocopies of the documents concerned. In the facts mentioned above both the chamber summons are allowed in terms of respective prayer clauses (a) with further directions that Plaintiff shall first give inspection of documents relied upon in the plaint to Defendant No.106 and thereafter, immediately Defendant No.106 shall give inspection of the documents referred in the affidavit in reply to the notice of motion to the Plaintiff. Let this exercise be completed within a period of three weeks from today. The cost of the photocopies of the documents shall be borne by the Plaintiff and Defendant No.106 respectively. Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)