1506wp2688.11.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2687 OF 2011 Dhanraj Narayan Ghawalkar and anr. ..vs.. Smt.Sunita Shrishail Mali WRIT PETITION NO.2688 OF 2011. Ganesh Pyarelal Jaiswal ..vs.. Smt.Sunita Shrishail Mali ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. R.G.Kavimandan, Adv.for the petitioners. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 15th June, 2011. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 15/3/2011 passed by the 2nd Jt.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Buldana, by which order the application filed by the petitioner, Exh.42, came to be partly allowed. The petitioner herein is the original defendant in the suit filed by the respondent herein for arrears of rent and recovery of possession under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. In the said suit, the petitioner/defendant filed an application Exh.42 under Order 11 Rule 14 of C.P.Code for production of certain documents. The defendant wanted the plaintiff to produce the carbon copy of the original receipt 1506wp2688.11.odt 2 book, the permission of construction of shop, Will-deed executed by deceased Siddhappa Mahadeoappa Jatkar dated 26/8/1997, death Certificate of the said Siddhappa Mahadeoappa Jatkar and map of the entire premises in the occupation and possession of the plaintiff. The Trial Court for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order allowed the production of only the Will-deed executed by Siddhappa Mahadeoappa Jatkar dated 26/8/1997. In my view, the reasons mentioned by the Trial Court while rejecting the production of the documents, in the teeth of the facts and circumstances of the documents already on record and in the teeth of the pleadings of the parties, cannot be faulted with. No case for interference is, therefore, made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE chute