1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8342 OF 2009 Dharmaraj s/o Rajabhau Sonwane ... PETITIONER VERSUS Palinkabai w/o Rajabhau Sonwane & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri R.T. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner Shri B.R. Kedar, Advocate for respondents ..... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 29th September, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner informs, pursuant to order dated 9.12.2009, costs of Rs. 5000/- are deposited on 19.1.2010 before the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kaij on 19.1.2010. 2. The defendant, in a suit of 1999, after evidence of plaintiff on 23.6.2009, moved application for production of the documents. Rejection by order dated 28.10.2009 is questioned by the defendant/ petitioner. 3. The dates in the matter are eye opener. Issues were settled on 25/6/2004. The defendant allowed the things to get dried 2 by completion of evidence of plaintiff of woke from laziness after sufficient long duration of ten years and to make the application for production of documents in the form of certified copies. 4. The Apex Court, in the matter of Madanlal Vs. Shyamlal (AIR 2002 Supreme court 100), have indicated the situation of “sufficient cause” to be indicated. 5. In the application seeking such production, no sufficient cause is indicated by defendant making the learned Judge to entertain his application. 6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Haji Munir Ahmed Mansoori Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2008(2) Mh.L.J. 26). Paragraph No.5 thereof reads as under : “5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at some length, we are of the considered view that what the Court has to examine at this stage is whether these documents have any bearing on the matters in issue in the writ petition and would help the Court in fully and finally adjudicating the matter. Merely because there was some delay on the part of the applicant could not justify rejection of the documents. Our observation that these documents are relevant is to be construed strictly and the right of respondent No.10 to show that these documents are not relevant and/or do not have any effect on the 3 merits of the case is obviously kept open. As far as the application of the Intervenor is concerned, there is some delay in filing the objections, but that per se should not been the applicant raising objections to the report inasmuch as the matter is to be heard again and thus, no prejudice will be caused to any of the parties if the documents are taken into consideration and the objections of the Intervenor are considered in accordance with law.” 7. In the fact situation, the said judgment could not be made applicable with the same force to the present case as time that has been consumed for ten years by the defendant. The statutory arrangement also could not be put to obliteration and consequently, the writ petition lacks merits. It is dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL) JUDGE fmp/wp8342.09