1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1932 OF 2010 Sk.Mujiboddin M. Jamaloddin Age : 40 years, Occ : Auto Driver, R/o Deshpande Galli, Degloor, Tq.Degloor, Dist.Nanded. ..Petitioner V/s 1. Ahmedbee Lal Mohammad Age : 60 years, Occ : Household, R/o Deshpande Galli, Degloor, Tq. Degloor, Dist.Nanded. 2. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Degloor, Dist.Nanded. ..Respondents ......... Mr.U.B. Bilolikar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.S.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.2. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 9th June, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of learned counsel for the parties, this matter is heard and disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 25th January, 2010 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Degloor on his application (Exhibit-82). By that order, the 2 application for production of documents enlisted vide Exhibit-83 came to be rejected. 3. The petitioner is original defendant no.1 in Suit (R.C.S. No.172/2003). He filed application for production of certain documents in order to support his contentions. The Trial Court noticed that there was no sufficient reason given by the petitioner for non-production of the said documents at the time of filing of the written statement and counter claim and also during course of evidence of the petitioner. Hence, the application was rejected. 4. Though served, the respondent no.1 is absent. He is the original plaintiff. The counsel for petitioner and the respondent no.2 are heard. The counsel for respondent no.2 has no objection to allow the production of documents. 5. There can not be any duality of opinion that party is required to produce documents along with pleadings. The party may be permitted to produce the documents at the time of hearing. The petitioner has filed the counter claim in the suit. The petitioner, no doubt, did not explain the delay and simply stated that production of documents was necessary to support his case. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit, however, that 3 documents consist of certified copies of certain judgments and map drawn by the public authority. The learned counsel would further submit that the relevant documents were with the original owner of the property in question, and therefore, it was difficult to produce them at the time of filing of written statement. The production of private documents may be denied, if application is unsupported by any substantial reason. The production of public documents like copies of judgments and map prepared by the public authority be, however, permitted at any stage of trial. This is so because such production may be helpful in reaching appropriate conclusion by the Trial Court during course of adjudicatory process. In such matter, the Trial Court is therefore required to take liberal view. There is nothing on record to infer that production of the public documents could have prejudiced the original plaintiff. It is necessary to notice that the petitioner is plaintiff of counter claim and is required to support the counter claim on strength of documentary evidence. Considering these aspects, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should not have been deprived of opportunity of production of public documents. The Trial Court should have imposed costs for late production. 6. In the result, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside with direction to allow the production of only 4 public documents amongst the documents which are produced vide list Exhibit-83, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/- by the petitioner to the original plaintiff i.e. respondent no.1. If the costs are not paid within a period of four weeks, the petition may be deemed as dismissed and the impugned order may be deemed as confirmed. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp1932.10